The youngest cranky old man in the South Dakota Blogosphere gives us a taste of the basic opposition Governor Daugaard and his new best friends in the SDEA will face in passing a truly revolutionary pay raise for South Dakota teachers:
I’m not going to link all the feel good stories about getting taxed more to give a pay raise to people who work 9 months out of the year to educate children that are not mine.
I already pay their wages with my property taxes.
I figured as a single dude I will paying about $130 more a year in regressive retail taxes so a certain sector of our South Dakota society can make more then me, though I work just as hard [Scott Ehrisman, “Half a Penny Bull—-!” South Dacola, 2016.01.14].
I’ll continue to say the following to everyone who stomps off in the nine months/I work hard too direction:
Raising teacher pay isn’t about you. It isn’t about your hours or your sweat or your grievances against your boss. It’s about South Dakota underpaying 9,362 vital public servants. It’s about those public servants and the professionals we could hire to replace them being able to make 22% to 41% more simply by moving to any adjoining state and doing the same work. It’s about the urgent need to pay our teachers at least $8,500 more per year, if not more, just to maintain the sorely depleted public education system we have, never mind restoring the vocational/technical/arts/world language/home economics courses that decades of Republican neglect have forced schools to strip from their offerings.
Raising teacher pay is about saving public education in South Dakota from the loss of its professional labor pool.
Oh, wait, raising teacher pay is about you, and me, and everyone’s need to pay full price for the value of educating other people’s kids so they don’t become bums, crooks, or permanently underemployed citizens trapped outside the full opportunities of the modern economy by substandard K-12 educations.
I don’t like sales tax, either. I don’t like funding these necessary raises for teachers on the backs of low-income South Dakotans buying groceries. I join Mr. Ehrisman in calling for a more progressive tax structure that more fairly taps the wealth that certain rich people make and stash in our pro-corporate, anti-worker state.
But that doesn’t mean we dismiss teachers and the importance of their work to our state. Instead we turn to our legislators, tell them to raise teacher pay but raise it right by imposing fairer taxes.
One problem with his argument is this sentence: “I already pay their wages with my property taxes.” No you don’t. The education funding system is much more complicated than this, but the dumb crowd isn’t going to pay attention long enough to try to catch up. Depending on where you live, local property taxes may pay for a large share of school expenses, including teacher wages, or it may not.
Still, I can sympathize with his plight. The increased revenue stream shouldn’t come out of the poor and lower middle class. It should come out of the wealthy and upper middle class, who have shirked there responsibility for education funding for decades. When the dumb crowd wakes up from their decades long nap, maybe they will see that they do have the power to change the tax system. Until then, the Republicans give you the choice of paying unfairly for education, or letting the education system sink further and further into mediocrity, or worse.
Now that’s a choice people shouldn’t have to make, but it’s a choice the Republicans give you. The tax system should be fair, but it isn’t because the Republicans want to stick the poor and middle class with the costs of education and other services, rather than tax the people who, let’s face it, have bribed them to not tax them. If that bribery didn’t exist, in other words if the wealthy paid their fair share of taxes, this half penny tax on the poor and middle class wouldn’t be necessary.
I know for me it is something I have thought about long and hard. I hate the idea that once again the wealthy and their Republican lackeys are sticking it to the poor and middle class. But the only hope for a decent education system is to pay the damn half penny, and hope eventually at some point, people like Ehrisman will wake up and take out is frustration on the folks who are really at fault, rather than teachers and school children.
What does this dingbat say about Marlboro Barbie,Rounds and Noem collecting several times more money for less than three months work?
This issue always goes back to where the problem of low teacher pay started. People would like to see teacher wages increase as long as someone else pays the bill. If this issue is always going to be a political party issue it will never be solved. It is not a Republican VS Democrat issue and if both parties don’t work together it will not be solved. Teachers belong to both political parties. It time for people to grow up and get it done. Let’s put our legislators on notice, if you stand in the way on increasing teacher pay WE WILL VOTE YOUR ASS OUT.
I have no children; never have had; but I will always support teacher pay, education, and children’s health care (gasp!) because my future lies in those children’s hands, and I want them to be on the top of their game, not stupid, uneducated, and sick.
Raising teacher pay is not going to keep teachers in the profession. We all knew what the job salaries were like when we decided to join the teaching profession. Teachers are leaving the field in every state because the majority of the people making decisions about education have never stepped foot into a classroom since being a student. Many decisions being made do not benefit our students. Let teachers teach!
Good point, Donald! Ehrisman is right to criticize an unfair tax system that lets the rich get out of paying their fair share. But he needs to focus his argument on that unfair tax system, not take swipes at teachers.
And even if Ehrisman were paying teachers’ salaries with his property tax, he still would not be paying them enough.
Mike, Ehrisman has no love for Thune, Noem, or Rounds. But you’ll need to click on his blog and ask him directly in his comment section on how he fits our Congressional delegation into this discussion.
Greg, if there are teachers in both parties, we need to see 210 of them (105 Democrats, 105 Republicans) take out petitions and threaten to run and oust their incumbent legislators if the incumbents fail to raise teacher pay to competitive levels this year.
Eve, thank you for your recognition of our shared obligations under the social contract!
Beth, I agree that we need to get bureaucrats out of education and let teachers do their jobs. Constant standards churn, standardized testing, all those bureacratic externalities drive the great artists of teaching out of the profession. However, that change alone won’t change South Dakota’s competitive disadvantage in the labor market. I welcome reforms, but first and foremost, South Dakota needs to pay teachers what they are worth. We don’t get out of this mess without spending money.
Beth, let’s do BOTH: pay our teachers better and give some more decision making power in the schools. They are not mutually exclusive.
Young Mr. E is an interesting fellow. But he only has to sell 5 more of his paintings to make up that money again and if he works even harder he can sell as many paintings as he wants.
Donald, I have similar concerns on revenue raised in our state, but is this a $75 million education funding discussion or a $4.8 billion budget discussion?
This guy is absolutely childish.
I don’t have an immediate for the fire or police department or other public servants, but I’m darn glad they are there should I need them.
Beth, haven’t you also found that “knowing the salary when they got in” – a cognitive knowing – is not the same as living that decision, especially as bills and financial obligations grow over time? I see many younger teachers leave because the ends just stop meeting after a few years. Teachers may be willing to “go without,” but do not want that sacrifice for a new family.
That, Mr. O, is a failure to plan, which is a whole ‘nother issue.
Cory, your post is as good as any reply to the young fellow that I could draft – Thanks. It is sad how short sighted some folks are when it comes to educating the people that will grow up here and become adult members of our community. It is even sadder when such critics decide to attack teachers rather than the lawmakers who can’t see fit to adopt a progressive income tax and reduce reliance on property and sales taxes.
Isn’t it odd how a topic like this can bring some odd ducks together and other odd ducks driven from opposite corners of the bizzaroscape to a whole ‘nother corner of the room where they huddle together? You mark grudznick’s words, just like how I told you the robber barrons have more tricks up their sleeves I warn you that there will be some really interesting attacks on all these laws in the legislatures from strange places.
Too many here are missing the underlying point Mr. E is trying to make. This is a regressive tax. Regressive taxes are breaking the backs of the median income earner in this state. Cory has done a really good job of filling in the blanks as to where this money should be coming from.
Most teachers do more work under more stressful conditions in nine months than many others in various occupations do in twelve months.
You’re right, Mike K, we are missing that point, because Ehrisman put the wrong point up front. We can make the point against regressive taxation without portraying teachers as the lazy enemy.
O makes the big point: we can do both. We have a chance to be bold and reform teacher pay and taxes. We can pay teachers what they are worth and tax South Dakotans what they can bear… which would mean lowering taxes for low-income working folks and raising taxes for the wealthy beneficiaries of South Dakota’s regressive tax structure. (I know, I know, trying to be that bold could get us all sent to the 41st day.)
Amen Supersweet.
I can see why Ehrisman is single. But he does make good points about the rich paying their fair share.
But the attitude is-well not good. What if he falls in love next week gets married and a year from now has a kid. Move a head 5 years. What should I pay to have someone teach his kid? My kids are out of school. I think the word is short sighted.
I invite him to go to a school and sit in and watch what goes on and then go watch the teacher as she stays late after school. They follow her as she goes home makes and then eats some supper and watch as she pulls out papers she brought home to correct and then stay up until midnight as she grades these papers. Then get up earlier and start the whole process over again. Follow her in the summer as she takes classes to be re-certified. Hopefully they won’t cost anything. Follow her as she goes to her summer job to supplement her income-some have a second job during school. What I’m saying to Ehrisman is walk a mile in a teachers shoes before you open up your mouth and show people how ignorant you are.
I don’t know about Mr. E’s marital status but I know he likes bands and makes some art and works as a waiter in a neat basement restaurant where he tries to advance many libbie causes, so I think some of you are being too harsh on him. I, for one, find him a pretty swell fellow.
“””””Most teachers do more work under more stressful conditions in nine months than many others in various occupations do in twelve months.”””” Not supersweet for sure.
If there is an argument for teachers wages, it needs to rely solely on getting them from the competition and keeping them from the competition because they damn sure don’t do more work in 9 months than many occupations do in 12 and that is not the point anyway. Those other occupations can’t teach or some would be teaching.
As far as teachers or anyone else in the state saying the poor are not valuable enough to consider on taxation issues or that teachers are important enough to forgo less regressive taxing of our poor, that is BS.
Les, while I agree with SuperSweet’s experience-based observation about the difficulty of teaching, I will agree with you that the argument for raising teacher pay hinges on competing for talent and does not depend on comparing teachers’ work with work in other fields. I’m saying something similar about Mr. Ehrisman’s argument: sure, sales tax is regressive, and we should talk about taxing everyone fairly, but that discussion does not depend on saying that Ehrisman works longer hours than the local French teacher.
“Most teachers do more work under more stressful conditions in nine months than many others in various occupations do in twelve months.”
If you want to hurt your cause and leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouth, keep repeating this. It’s completely subjective and it has no business even being in the argument.
Most Americans work on average 230 days when you factor in their vacation, holidays and weekends. These Americans who are not salaried are also entitled to overtime pay.
From my experience most teachers work 50-60 hours a week during the school year. Sure there are few bad eggs in the system, but once again look at your own work situations is everyone contributing at the same level you feel is more then the minimum. If the answer is no, then why not?
If you increase pay and that results in a larger pool of candidates do you think the quality of those candidates selected will increase? Is a smaller pool of candidates resulting in less then qualified candidates receiving a position. Is the funding formula preventing good teachers who left the system from coming back into the system since school districts are more likely to take a chance with a recently graduated teacher, then pay extra for an experience one.
What it comes down to is with limited funds you can not seek qualified individuals and so for years (ten plus now) the state legislature has created this problem regardless of the governor.
I commented under the original post the actual statistics of South Dakota versus our to closest neighbors in terms of classroom size. We rank behind them.
For those of you who like statistics dive into this and look at the ten year trends.
http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/NEA_Rankings_And_Estimates-2015-03-11a.pdf
According to the Wall Street journal https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/survey-teachers-work-53-hours-per-week-on-average/2012/03/16/gIQAqGxYGS_blog.html
You see that teachers in the US work 1913 hours (including 1097 hours of direct instruction) a year working compared to the average worker who works 1932.
Sorry wrong link.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/06/25/number-of-the-week-u-s-teachers-hours-among-worlds-longest/
50 hours a week without overtime….welcome to the real world. Once again, not something that should even be in the argument. Why do teachers feel like they have some unique job that no one else has to deal with?
If you want to help the Buresh cause just keep your teacher traps shut and quit making out to be special. That don’t impress him much. Gee, that sounds like a song.
I find Scott’s statements about teachers interesting but not unexpected. Scott likes to act like a liberal right up until the point that his tax dollars are needed to pay for something. Then he seems to flip into a far right conservative.
Scott also seems to have a grudge against kids and feels he is slighted for paying to education other people’s kids. It is probably worth noting that for every dollar we put into education we likely save two or three from prisons and welfare programs. Liberal or conservative – education should be something everyone can agree on. Also – why are people so quick to complain about paying for the education for other people’s kids without acknowledging that the taxpayers actually paid for their education when they were a kid too? This is an investment in society and we are all in this together. Those who wish to isolate themselves and complain about the costs don’t understand society or the economy.
The fact is some teachers are leaving the profession due in no small part to the money involved. Other prospective teachers aren’t entering the profession for the same reason. By paying our teachers well under what they are worth we are hurting the education of our kids. It is really that simple. If you want the best candidate for a job you need to pay them what they are worth – because if you don’t the results will suffer and you’re left with teachers who may not have other opportunities elsewhere… are those really the teachers we want?
Time to grow up and admit in order to fix the issue it might require few bucks out of our pockets. So what – it will be well worth it. To think otherwise is simply selfish and short sighted.
Craig nailed it.
Be thankful your issue is only severely under paid teachers. The issue of school vouchers is much more volatile. In short, Republicans want tax money to send their kids to Catholic and born-again schools. They do this by fighting teacher unions and initiating merit pay.
Wasn’t the real world a show on MTV?
The fact is that under the FLSA employees over 40 hours a week are entitled to overtime, except for those who are exempt which are teachers and other salaried individuals. If you are paying someone overtime in an hourly setting, then you should also be paying someone that same benefit in their salary.
Please tell me what your side of the argument you are on and what you are trying to promote. I see a lot of don’t go down that street language, but nothing that would point people in a different direction.
When I was a teen and went to a basketball game, most of the teachers were there. They are not the only professionals who put in a little overtime without overtime pay but they surely do their share. The first five years someone is a teacher they spend most of their summers going to grad school to get their masters degree. It is worthwhile to count all the differences and not just part of it.
I’m so misunderstood :(
The okies are attempting this foolishness also, they rank 49th in the country for per student funding
http://www.oudaily.com/news/boren-teachers-start-petition-for-education-sales-tax/article_36a133b8-782d-11e5-a788-1fb1425c3f6e.html
It’s called desperation. They realize that something needs to be done and their doing it. They said it was their last choice.
Ever see the cable TV spot about the settlers? “We don’t have nice things, son. We’re settlers. We settle. That’s what we do.” What the hell is wrong with paying taxes. Taxes equal nice things that we can be proud of. A true liberal pays his taxes without bitching. A greedy Republican is happy just to settle. (Republicans always seem to find a way around paying their share anyway, even if taxes are raised for the things people want.)
My question is this, if the proposal passes, will administrators and school boards use all new money on teacher salary’s? Or will they use it in other areas? Building projects, administrators salaries, ect. I’m in favor of paying moremtaxes as long as it makes it to the teachers. I’m not too trusting of the politically savvy administrators. Also, how about schools support staff. Would/should they receive raises from this tax? They are an important part of schools and are equally under paid as teachers.
Roughly four years ago, members of the left wanted to raise funds for Medicaid and education through an initiative, which would have raised the necessary funds with an increase in the sales tax.
Well, to oddly paraphrase a conservative President “There they go again…” The ability of some on the left to see an increase in the sales tax as a viable option to tax is further proof some on the left have lost their political soul. But more importantly, it demonstrates that the mantra of the left of economic justice is more talk than substance. Increasingly, the leadership of the left is beholden to particular interest groups within its reach in order for the left to maintain its relevance and in so doing they literally “throw the baby out with the bathwater” in their attempted solvency of issues like teacher pay.
You want to know why someone like Trump is so popular? It is not the Republicans’ fault. It is the fault of some on the left within the Democratic party. These particular members of the Democratic party are right about gay rights, civil rights, women’s rights, health care, and carbon and the environment, but their entire success stories politically have been limited to these social and environmental issues while the broader issue of economic justice is more talk than substance and when members of the left nationally support PTT when they were opposed to NAFTA as recent as 2008 or in South Dakota support an increase in the sales tax to fund education, they are once again demonstrating the Party’s placating to particular interest groups totally void of the greater idea of what it means to be a Democrat and how we can best achieve the greater goal of economic justice through a progressive instead of a regressive tax system or for that matter a fair trade picture on the national and international scenes.
Certainly, some will claim that a happy teacher makes for a happy student and a better educational experience for our youth. It’s a trickle-down theory that I actually buy, but this reality is merely a bandage to the greater problem or attitude which is the real enemy of education in this state and teacher pay. A problem identified by the inability of many on the left to understand that in order to achieve our true goals of economic justice we cannot continue to cater merely to special interest groups, even groups as cherished as our children and respected teachers. That is, if we are going to respect the underlying purpose of what it means to be a Democrat or a member of the left.
A party which constantly complains about wages in this state cannot also be a Party or a left which tries to put money in one pocket of the working poor, while it has its hands in the other pocket looking for coinage….
if we are going, not “if we are not going”
Oh, snow gates are for entitled white fat people. Duh.
Very good, Winston. Your partners are willing to sell their souls for a win.
Craig hardly nailed a multi faceted issue. Wages have seldom been the sole reason for employee loss and Scott is hardly the problem here.
It is a damn shame that you weren’t here to enjoy the Black Hills Beer fest today, lar. Fat white people drinking beer. Right off the Interstate 90, quick in and quick out. Easy to avoid the cops if you were dropping off a “package.” I’m just sayin…it was absolutely in your wheelhouse.
Daniel, I’m not repeating that line. It’s irrelevant to this debate. But I like Madman’s numbers. Let’s get over our “I work harder than you” sniping and, as Craig says, do what we need to do to stem the teacher shortage.
Winston, you stretch a bit too far to portray teacher pay as a favor to special interests. Raising teacher pay is about sustaining an effective public education system, which is in everyone’s interest.
I also think you stretch in trying to blame the rise of Trump on compromising Democrats. You might get some secondary traction there, but nothing we’re talking overrides the racism, xenophobia, and middle-aged angst that are primarily responsible for who’s at the wheel of the GOP clown car.
That said, I agree that increasing the sales tax is straight political pragmatism, not principled tax policy with an eye toward economic justice.
Bill B, the proposals so far (no bill in the hopper yet, is there?) do not impose any mandates on local districts on how to use the money. Both the Governor and Democratic legislators appear willing to let local districts decide how to spend the money. If a teacher pay raise passes in Pierre, voters will then need to turn to their school boards and demand that they use the money appropriately. (Democracy’s work is never done.) I’d like to think that if we swallow the pill of a tax increase to solve this very specific problem, local boards will find themselves under a lot of pressure to use that money for that purpose or face a lot of wrath from a lot of voters.
Bill B, I have not seen support staff addressed in this proposal. Is there a support staff shortage?
Four years ago the “left” didn’t run South Dakota or the U S congress, Roughly 4 years ago Obamacare made expanding Medicaid free for the first 3 years if states wanted it and were willing to pay 10% after 3 years. I don’t recall any talk of tax increases then because tax increases were DOA according to Reich Chancellor Gwover Norquist.
Cah, no bill in the hopper and I’m unsure if SD schools have a shortage of support staff, but I do know they arent always paid the best. Would this cause hard feelings between teachers recieving an $8000 raise and their support staff receiving hardly any raise? I heard a rummor that a couple administrators called an all staff meeting to discuss how this hypothetical money would change salaries. Supposedly they expressed the sentiment I previously stated while implying teachers would receive a healthy raise if Duugaurd’s plan were to pass, but not the target salarys because other staff needs raises too. If my sources are correct, I have mixed feeling on this topic.
Cory, I always enjoy and respect your constructive criticism.
Although, we all definitely benefit from the work of teachers and their pay impacts the final product, which is all of us. Each political unit of our society is a special interest and it is the collection of these interests which have played too much of a dictation in what we are as a political party as Democrats. Individually, we can be very supportive and proud of what each of these interests and successes have done and say about the Democratic party as a whole, but the totality has often been that the underlying mantra or purpose of the party has been treated as an after thought or mere step-child….. and that mantra is economic justice for all as we continue to merely pursuit or maintain the major special interest groups within the grand Democratic party coalition, instead.
As far as Trump is concerned. If he gets the GOP nomination. The Democratic nominee will have to fight like hell to hold on to the “Reagan Democrats” amongst us. A wing of the Democratic party which I do not always wish to apologize for, but are crucial to Democratic electoral successes and a wing of the party which cares about wages, just taxes, and a better life for them and all Americans…. The theme, which since FDR, has been what I thought the Democratic party was all about…. It’s about the “New Deal” and not the “New Democrat” whom succeed merely through the collection of special interest groups at the expense of the workers of all races, creed, or sex.
Now a Sanders nomination could perhaps solve the aforementioned concern and polls do have Bernie running stronger than Hillary against Trump right now, but the obvious bias towards Hillary by the DNC further lends fuel to the establishment bent on this Democratic (party) process – a bent highly dependent upon the collection of special interest groups to fund and maintain its relevance at the expense of the mantra.
BillB I agree that support are crucial in any school and they are under paid.
But the teachers have the 4 year degrees and are teaching our children and grandchildren.
The state needs to start with them.
Again I don’t mean to imply that support aren’t important. They are important
Bonus video! Watch Scott Ehrisman and me discuss tax reform and the teacher pay plan at SF Democratic Forum, just one day after I put up this post:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8u_6dfxrrs
See? We can all get along!
Bill B, that does complicate matters. With no disrespect intended toward anyone who works in education, I contend this bill is volatile and risky enough that we have to keep it clean. The Blue Ribbon panel studied teacher pay. We have the data showing teacher pay is in crisis. We have to solve that crisis. We need a clean bill raising teacher pay with a fair revenue source. Period.
If there is a problem with support staff pay, with availability of capital outlay funds, with standards, with who knows what, we need to have that debate separately and put solutions in a separate bill.
Winston, I agree that a Sanders nomination would be a direct challenge to the special-interest bent you spotlight. I also agree Democrats need to swallow their factionalism and focus on and sell to voters the greater good that we stand for. And right now, we achieve the greater good by raising teacher pay (see my latest post and excerpt from my Friday speech at SF Dem Forum).
As for Trump, I wonder: would every Reagan Democrat we lose to Trump be compensated by every Herseth Republican we would win back?
Wouldn’t increased spending by teachers with more disposable income offset much of any tax increase-if that is the way the money for teachers is raised? Looks like a win-win scenario.
I’ve told my comrades at Free Press to affect the GOP primary in SD if they want a voice in SD politics. Winston has values and winning figured out.
There are pub voters who will hold Trump accountable to the last minute and may possibly jump ship without much pressure, Cory, but remember, SHS was a Blue Dog, hardly a Sanders.
I’m sending Bernie $100. May the best man win!
Cory, I question if we can win the “Herseth Repubicans” back. In fact, I question if there are such voters as “Herseth Republicans,” that is in terms of any past or future Herseth run. The degree to which Herseth was backed by Republicans, primarily in her ’06 and ’08 candidacies, had mostly to do with the fact her Republican opponents in those given years were second tier at best.
However, if you mean “Herseth Republicans” in a bigger context than just Herseth or you are talking about what we use to call “Rockefeller Republicans.” I am not totally confident we can bring them into the Democratic party in 2016 in a hopeful rejection of their potential Republican nominee for President, the Donald. I say this because, I believe unfortunately there is a “little Archie Bunker in us all” and that reality will keep Republicans in their camp and I expect Trump to campaign in the fall as a Republican and he will use that name brand as he has always done effectively as a successful salesman over the years.
But I do believe if Hillary is the nominee a lot of a Republican women will vote for Hillary, but never admit it publicly because they want the first female president to be elected in their lifetime. Polling I do not think is truly reflecting this, yet, or can. It might be an example of what use to be called the “Bradley effect” where voters say they will support a black candidate, but then they go into the voting booth and vote white. A substantial number of swing and Republican women voters, I think, will vote female in ’16 under a Hillary slate (Which is all the more reason the Noem/Hawks race could turn into a wildcard in SD regardless of what the DWC claims)….. Women are going to come out of the woodwork if Hillary is the nominee… but with Sanders we would actually get the real deal or the Fair and New deals once again…
And as a final note the paths to the White House for Hillary and Bernie are definitely different in a substantial way, for Hillary its to invoke the power of an interest group, but for Bernie its to invoke the party mantra…. Once again the battle of our party’s soul is up for grabs…..