Last updated on 2016-02-20
The South Dakota House of Representatives just rejected House Bill 1182, Governor Dennis Daugaard’s 0.5 percentage-point sales tax increase to fund increased teacher pay. Here’s the roll call vote as displayed in the House:
As a tax increase, HB 1182 required a two-thirds majority. It fell one vote short. The 23 members who voted nay were all Republicans.
Rep. Dan Kaiser (R-3/Aberdeen) was absent. Had he been present and voted yea, he could have tipped the balance in favor of HB 1182. However, given his usual association with many of the arch-conservative naysayers, it is unlikely his presence would have made a difference in the outcome.
Every Democrat in the House backed the Republican governor’s plan. They set aside their own superior plan and their concerns about the uncreative and regressive nature of the tax being used to raise teacher pay… only to hear the Republican opponents co-opt Democratic arguments that it’s unfair to fund state programs on the backs of lower-income folks who can least afford such increases. Majority Leader Brian Gosch (R-32/Rapid City) boiled HB 1182 down to “redistribution of wealth” to teachers placed on the backs of his friend in a wheelchair who got no cost-of-living increase in her paltry government check this year.
It seems unlikely those naysayers would give in to logic and apply their arguments today to support the superior Democratic plan (less regressive tax, no teachers lost, and more competitive wages). Offered a new plan, these Republicans seem inclined to shift their arguments to some new ground, to kick and scream about any new tax, to play class envy, whatever it takes to keep those darn teachers from getting any more money.
The Governor’s plan isn’t dead. Rep. Lee Schoenbeck (R-5/Watertown) moved to reconsider, and Speaker Dean Wink placed HB 1182 on tomorrow’s Monday’s agenda.* The Governor thus has 24 hours for arm-twisting.
I am curious: the Democrats did their part to line up behind the Governor and vote for his far-too-long-delayed action. The Democrats played no parliamentary games, made no effort to sneak their own amendments onto the bill. Are Democrats required to offer any further support to a major tax increase on which the Governor cannot secure unity from his own party?
Update 19:03 CST: An eager reader in the Capitol corrects me: the House will take up the motion to reconsider on Monday, February 22. That will give the 23 naysayers the chance to check with their constituents at this weekend’s crackerbarrels.
Democrats should just do what’s right. The sales tax, though regressive, is the lesser of two evils. Pass it now, fix it later.
Cory, with your last paragraph in mind, if 1182 does not prevail on reconsideration, I don’t see any alternative Gosch plan gaining traction in the House. Why would the Democrats support a too-small stop-gap one time money Band-Aid on a gushing arterial wound?
I’m wondering if anybody in Pierre on the Republican side is regretting the imposition of the 2/3 supermajority for tax increases that they imposed on themselves?
Interesting that Lana Greenfield a former teacher voted no. I guess her other family’s business ventures were profitable. She can just go and relax at Greeny’s, or maybe cruise through Clark and check out the demolished Shortstop.
It is all the Republican’s fault.
Just what DD hoped?
Now for Medicaid?
@leslie
Sanford is behind expansion of Medicaid. They usually get what they want. Since they didn’t get HB 1067, they will probably get Medicaid expansion. In fact, that may have been the deal.
leslie – that’s just plain cynical. Still… it would give him the political cover to say “Well, I tried!” Gah. This is why we can’t have nice things.
I had a feeling that this would happen. All the positive reaction to the Blue Ribbon Panel ignored that a minority of representatives can go against the will of the people. What the Democrats have done is work in response of what 71% of the population in SD supports. They followed the general will of the people.
This is a gut punch today and I don’t know how many more of these I can take and stay in South Dakota as a teacher. I can not in good conscience encourage any of my former students going into education to consider teaching in South Dakota. My two boys deserve quality educators, and that will disappear in the next few years because there will be to many gaps to fill as teachers retire or move on to Wyoming, North Dakota, Iowa, or Minnesota.
Mr. H, are you sure they will vote again tomorrow? Does not Mr. S from Watertown have to get enough votes to first decide if they can vote again and then there could be another delay? I am just asking because I am not running for the legislatures like you and do not understand the rules.
A sales tax increase is not part of my template. Stay tuned.
This has been an Oscar worthy political drama filled with great screenplay writing, great acting and great directing. And the Oscar goes to . . .
My granddaughter pointed me to where they keep the rules. I find them very hard to understand and read but I think they say that you can give a notice to talk about it again right away and then the next day you have to officially ask to reconsider and then people vote. And they vote whether you can talk about the law bill again and then have a whole ‘nother vote on the actual bill. So I do not think they will vote on this teacher tax increase again tomorrow. That would give the Governor several days to twist the arms and you teacher lovers to get out and pound on the doors of the nay-sayers. I could be wrong, but I’m just sayin…
Ditto Michael Larson. I have spent 23 years teaching in this state and today might be the breaking point. Despite all the evidence in favor of this bill it still failed.
More like Golden Raspberry Award. You’ve seen virtually the same remake for the 11th time(?) and it always ends the same way. Time for newer,younger more up to date authors to rewrite the script. With a satisfactory ending for the teachers and students.
It could be taken to public vote correct and the more times the voting public sees the legislature is out of step is not a bad thing to help get elected additional moderates which would make a considerable difference, both in an outcome like this and how people feel about the state generally.
Jason – Say it ain’t so! My kid just put down APUSH for his senior year plan!
I realize the Democrats in Pierre want to be a part of the answer and not a part of the problem, when it comes to their new found support for our current sales tax mechanism in South Dakota to fund increase pay for teachers, but this assumes they will get some of the credit for its passage, if it eventually does, but they won’t.
However, they will be on record in support of the sales tax as an equitable form of taxation, which is a sad mistake.
In 2010, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Scott Heidepriem claimed there was a pending educational crisis in South Dakota, while Republican gubernatorial candidate Dennis Daugaard claimed there wasn’t.
Well, Scott was right and Dennis was wrong, but what Scott also said in 2010 was that the money was there within our current revenue and reserves to resolve this problem. I believe he claimed there were over $ 1 billion dollars in reserves which could be tapped or manipulated to address the “educational crisis” without raising taxes.
Now, speed forward six years later and we find that Dennis Daugaard finally recognizes the “educational crisis,” but the Democrats instead of trying to find the funding for teacher pay from current revenues and or the reserve funds have decided to be co-opted on the issue of the legitimacy of sales taxes as an equitable form of taxation, which is very sad.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe the teachers need a significant pay increase in this state, but is there not a greater majority to be found on the issue by bringing the most conservative of the Republicans to the table by advocating the use of general revenue and reserve funds instead of an increase in the sales tax to fund an increase in teacher pay; and would not such a move not only be successful, but also allow the Democratic Party in South Dakota to be truthful to its long standing position that sales taxes are regressive and should be limited or ended and not legitimized through an enhance dependency upon them?
The Democrats were against a sales tax increase in the 1980s, when then Governor Mickelson advocated them for REDI funds and they opposed Governor Janklow’s gross receipt tax (“the sick tax” or a backdoor sales tax) on medical receipts in the 1990s. Because they understand that sales taxes were a regressive form of taxation. What has changed, I ask?
The Democrats current support for Daugaard’s plan and even their own plan which replaces the food sales tax with a 1% increase in the sale tax for all other transactions are merely attempts to be relevant in a debate which they will never get credit for; but they are at risk of losing their mantra of being for the poor and working poor when they help to continue the legitimacy of sales taxes as an acceptable and thus equitable form of taxation.
The Democrats in Pierre in supporting the increase in a sales tax for education remind me of the national Democrats in the 1990s who broke with Party tradition and supported NAFTA and the free trade mantra all for the sake of being relevant or should we say “New Democrats.”
Democrats will never be successful Democrats as long as we continue to try to be “kinder and gentler” Republicans. It is not our job as Democrats to impress. Rather, it is our job to stay true to what we claim to be and a sales tax increase, even if it is for the students and teachers and might seem to solve a problem, only further makes us irrelevant as a political party and makes me wonder what it is all about, when one party mimics another party rather than offering a legitimate and equitable contrast, and in turn, loses its identity to affect future change – change, which will eventually be necessary, if we truly want lasting and adequate funding for education in the future.
Can we refer the Democrat plan? I’m not sure if tax increases and such can be referred to a public vote. Let the people that pay the taxes decide.
What was really sickening was listening to the Tea Party Republicans cry about the poor people and that they can’t afford this.
That story from Gosch was nothing more then a hypocrite talking. He could care less about her. It was his opportunity to get a dig in on Obama.
The Governor has a lot riding on this bill.If he doesn’t come through he’ll have a lot of egg on his face.
Tim, the Democratic plan can’t be referred because it hasn’t been passed. You are thinking of the procedure for initiated measures and the deadline for that has passed.
Sebern and Larsen- I echo your sentiments. As a teacher, this feels like a slap in the face. I am wondering if I chose the wrong profession. I made more money selling clothes and working half as hard.
As a parent, it feels as if legislators are completely unaware of teacher retention issues. The school I teach at has had a one-third staff turn-over the last three years running. New teachers from BH are hired, gain the experience and leave. We are slated to lose another third as they move into retirement. That means a two-thirds revolving door. Essentially, our youth are guinea pigs for those who do not yet have the skill set to do students justice. (No offense, new teachers). I am sad my children’s education means so little.
Owen is absolutely right on this. If Governor Dennis wants this he needs to twist a few arms. If he can’t get it passed, even when spotted every Democratic vote, he doesn’t deserve to be called the leader of our state.
Here is one listing for education jobs in Minnesota. The best career move I made http://www1.stcloudstate.edu/joblistings/edpost/
Mr. H, see grudznick at 17:35 and 17:59. 17:59 declaration trumps 19:03. So sayeth grudznick.
I wonder JKC why you feel conservative Republicans would be more willing to support the bill simply if the money came from a different source. Democrats were obviously hard pressed to have voted no. Labels are not relevant just acceptable policy and getting basic needs met. This is a real need which shows how far from center many Republicans are in the legislature. Motivate the moderates D or R and reap benefits for the whole state or people are gonna leave because the Rs in power are too fundamentalist.
I don’t blame you, Michael. Honestly, just across the border in MN we have a Governor that fights hard for education funding and deeply cares about our teachers and students. Teachers and students would not finder a more staunch supporter than Mark Dayton.
SD just gets more depressing each your. Cory your blog is sad!
Mr. JKC, you ask “is there not a greater majority to be found on the issue by bringing the most conservative of the Republicans to the table by advocating the use of general revenue and reserve funds instead of an increase in the sales tax to fund an increase in teacher pay; and would not such a move not only be successful, but also allow the Democratic Party in South Dakota to be truthful to its long standing position that sales taxes are regressive and should be limited or ended and not legitimized through an enhance dependency upon them?”
You asked so I will answer: You will not get an agreement with the far right in the SD legislature that meaningfully addresses teacher pay. Any concern they feign is an illusion. What they will agree to is crumbs of one-time money just to get you to go away. Did you not hear Mr. Gosch doesn’t think teachers are underpaid? In fact, where is the mysterious Gosch plan that never materialized out of thin air? Like a unicorn, we have heard much praise about its beauty and we wonder what it would look like in real life, but we have never seen it.
The Democrats have made the argument for a less regressive tax system over the years and in the current debate. That is not lost to history. The Democrats voted for the lesser of two evils: continuation of our regressive tax system but a strengthening of our educational system. If we do not have a good educational system in South Dakota, the regressive tax system will be of no consequence.
We were one vote away from a meaningful step toward helping alleviate the teacher pay crisis. If we undermine our educational system in SD by starving it of resources, all is lost for our citizens and our future.
Maybe I’m speaking my backyard here because my two representatives both voted for more road taxes last year and against taxes for teacher pay this year, but we have the biggest chance in a long time to make the case to SD citizens that Democrats have their priorities in proper order. Strengthening our educational system is the most important thing state government can do for our economy, the middle class, the poor and disadvantaged and our future in general.
HC, because all we need is one conservative vote and Haggar said the the funds can be found within the general revenue and or reserves, and he voted “No” today. I am also safely assuming that all of the “Yes” votes from both parties could still support the alternative plan of using general revenues and or reserves.
Reading those funny rules again, I would say that technically the legislatures will take up the motion to reconsider on Friday Feb. 19 and then should that get enough yeahs and yeses they will then actually reconsider the bill on Monday Feb. 22.
JKC, What alternative plan do you speak of? Sorry to be blunt here, but you have been duped if you think there is an alternative plan.
Mr. Russell has put forth an alternate plan. Mr. H even lauded him for it. Perhaps that is where all of this is headed.
JKC, as to using reserves for teacher pay: one of the ten commandments in Pierre is thou shalt not use one-time money to fund ongoing expenses. The general reserves are around 150-170 million last time I checked which would fund two and a half years of a 60 million dollar teacher pay increase and then we wouldn’t have any general fund reserves.
crossgrain:
I love BHS and plan to be in the bubble in 2016-2017. The students are the best this state has to offer.
Jason
Darin, you are assuming that sales taxes as a lasting answer to our education funding are adequate themselves. Look at the most recent sales figures for Walmart, the future is e-commerce and not” brick and mortar” and thanks to Senator Thune and his recent vote on internet sales taxes, our sales tax revenues in the future will most likely be greatly challenged. The current plan to use sales taxes to solve teacher pay is not only a regressive plan, but also a short sighted one as well.
As far as for your comment, ….”Strengthening our educational system is the most important thing state government can do for our economy, the middle class, the poor and disadvantaged and our future in general”…. is concerned, I could not disagree, but I am claiming their is better way and a far more lasting way…. I truly believe their is a 2/3s majority in Pierre that would vote for use of general revenue and reserve funding except that such an idea lessens their legislative “fun money.”
Darin, as far as the reserve issue is concerned. Heidepreim claimed in 2010, it was over a billion…?
The “alternative plan” is general revenue and or reserves regardless of whether it has formally been introduced. Once again, I rely upon a combination of Heidepreim comment’s in 2010, and Haggar’s in 2016.
Mr. Claussen, is not the sales tax what feeds this general revenue or does the general revenue pour from a magic fountain in the bowels of the legislatures? But your idea about taking the billions of reserves, yes we should do that.
Grudznick, point well taken about our current dependency upon sales taxes as a form of revenue, but we should not enhance our dependency; and I will reiterate it once again, that Senator Thune’s recent vote to protect the internet from state sales taxes will only further challenge that revenue source in the future, and all the more recent we need to start looking at tax progressive tax reform in this state.
JKC, when thinking about what we have been told about education funding in the past (the pie is only so big so education can only have so much of it) compared to the notion now that we had the money all along and we just need to spend it on education, I’m reminded of the lawyer deposing a witness who has changed their story and asking the witness “were you lying then or are you lying now?” You mean to say that we have the extra money to fund education just lying around with no other use?
I’ll skip to the chase: all the other money “lying around” is already spoken for by people who will fight to keep it. Not to mention that a lot of essential programs cannot stand anymore cuts. The practical effect is that you will lose the votes you had in the House and be right back to square one with no bill garnering 2/3 support.
To be clear, I am not arguing in support of the sales and property tax system that we have. I am saying given the system that we have and the lack of money for education, 1182 is the best compromise that can hope to pass the legislature. Just short of 2/3 of the House currently agrees with me.
One point of error on my part, a plan that relies on existing revenue to fund teacher pay would only take a majority to pass, but the fact remains I don’t think that will pass either. When you rob Peter to pay Paul, Peter usually puts up a fight. Russell’s plan would pit literally almost every lobbyist in Pierre against the bill.
Mr. Russell seems ill-equipped to come up with a reasonable plan. My money is on Mr. Gosh’s friend, Mr. Weestera I think was his name. He sounds like he really wants to pay teachers but wants the school districts to shake loose some spare change.
“You mean to say that we have the extra money to fund education just lying around with no other use?”
Darin, I am glad you raised this point. My answer is “No.”
However, you have identified what is the real problem with this whole debate over teacher pay and that is that teacher pay is not a problem, it is a priority. The Republicans are the ones who have created the political narrative on this issue and Democrats have allowed it to happen through either supporting the Governor’s plan or a similar one, and the narrative they have created is one where they claim it is a problem. But it is not a “problem,” it is a priority. If general revenues and reserve funds are not enough to address increased teacher pay and all the other programs which need to be funded in state government, then the debate over a tax increase, regardless of what type of tax it will be, should be to address those other needs in state government that may or may not need to be funded, while teacher pay should be at the front of the line in terms of funding.
Let us remember as Democrats, we have been extremely critical of the growth of state government in the last fifteen years, and especially under Rounds, and if those criticisms are justified and significantly quantitative, then does not that waste in state government, itself, become a greater part of the solvency to the problem or priority, that is?
As far as the lobbyist are concerned. They are definitely there, I would agree, but so would the teachers and their most ardent supporters at election time, if only the Democrats would control the political narrative as a “priority” and not a “problem” or crisis, and not allow themselves to be enablers to the Republican political narrative on this issue…. Not to mention, if you can almost get 2/3s to raise taxes then you should be able to get 51% to fund teacher pay through the general revenue funds, I would think.
John KC, thank you for your thoughtful analysis. Glad to have you joining us. Now, are you saying that Democrats could practically turn, disavow sales tax, let the Blue Ribbon plan die, and march to victory in the polls this year with advocacy for higher teacher pay and tax reform? Are we not doing the right thing for South Dakota by, as Joel and Darin say, taking the lesser of two evils… or, I might argue, accepting the evil of sales tax to achieve the far greater good of finally taking substantial action on teacher pay?
Consider: We have teachers like Michael and Darin saying that failure to act on teacher pay this year could be the final straw (guys! Wait! Can yo give us one more push to try solving this problem at the polls in November?). People like them will give up on South Dakota over this one issue. Is anyone going to give up on South Dakota over a 4.5% sales tax? I’ll contend that raising the sales tax is bad, it hurts lots of people, but it’s not a state breaker. Letting the K-12 system rot any further may be. The teacher shortage may be that bad.
I don’t like talking like the pragmatist. I don’t like the false dilemma that the Governor and SDEA and others seem to have painted for us, that it’s the Governor’s plan or nothing. Smarter people should be able to identify a better plan (SB 151 launched now to fund pay raises in the next school year, tied to Senator Hunhoff’s corporate income tax to kick in next year. I’d like a lot more talk about what’s right and what gets the job done rather than what will just enough people vote for.
But dang it—if we’re facing the final vote, and no one is picking up our plan, can we really justify voting against putting $8,000 more in teachers’ pockets next year?
Back to the political question: what loses Dems more votes: voting for a regressive tax or leaving teacher pay at the bottom of the nation for the 31st big year?
Hap, Tim, Nick is right: there is no referral option here. If the House won’t pass HB 1182, and if no one will take up Dems’ SB 151 or Russell’s HB 1130, there is no way for us to put those failed measures to a vote. We can only refer bad laws that the Legislature passes. Initiatives are due a full year before the election (another unfair rule that slows the people’s ability to respond to the Legislature’s failures), so any citizen-initiated education plan would have to wait for petitioning in 2017 (actually could launch November this year) and public vote in 2018.
If we need new legislation, it would be faster to elect a majority of all new legislators who promise to vote a new teacher pay plan into action in the 2017 Session…
…which gets me thinking, John Kennedy Claussen, of a possible position for Dems. How about we say, “Folks, we have to vote for teacher pay raises funded with additional sales tax right now, because we can’t get anything else through the House. But elect 50 of us to the House and 25 of us to the Senate in November, and we’ll come back in January with a serious tax reform package that makes more progress on teacher pay and gets the burden off the backs of the poor.” Would that platform be a fair mix of immediate parliamentary pragmatism and proper policy idealism?
Anyone ever read the Declaration of Independence? Why we put Britan behind us?. People are taxed enough. It’s time to control spending, not raise taxes. My one Rep. has just lost my vote in the next election, and lucky for my Sen. that he’s retiring or he’d get the same treatment. Want to increase teacher pay, find another place to cut. It’s what every family does when money is tight.
Cory, thank you, to address your first three paragraphs, my answer is, “No” to scrapping the Blue Ribbon plan and etc. But Democrats should be working with conservatives, like Haggar, to fund an increase in teacher pay with general revenue funds and reserves. As to the “lesser of two evils” argument, I would argue we are not there, yet, but regardless, Democrats should have never put themselves in this position; and regardless of whether you agree with me or not, Democrats should have never fell for the Republican trap on this issue. Do I think Democrats could win in the fall on tax reform and increased teacher pay absence immediate solvency on this issue, you ask? “No,” however, we are not going to win in supporting it either, because Republicans are being allowed to control the narrative on this issue….From day one we should have been reminding the voters that it is a priority and not a problem.
As far as your later two paragraphs, increasing the sales tax to fund increased pay for teachers is really not a solvency. It is a falsehood. Last year, across the board retailers nationally saw a 10% decrease in foot traffic in their “brick and mortar” stores, while businesses like Amazon and other e-commerce companies are seeing continue growth in their businesses. Many of these businesses currently get away without collecting sales taxes do to a inadequate policing mechanism for state governments (which would be a further financial burden to states) and then, you have Senators like Thune, who want to exempt internet sales from state sales taxes. The culmination of those two realities prove that sales taxes and increased sales taxes levies are not the panacea to fiscal problems for states and their needs, which many on the right and left think it is in this state right now, rather it is balloon soon to burst, which will force tax reform, as I am advocating now, while collapsing our ability to sustain teacher pay levels in the not to distant future. If we think that a sales tax increase to fund teacher pay is a solvency, then we are in for a rude awakening and our claim to greater pay for teachers will be short lived because it will be dependent upon a designated penny within the sales tax mechanism, instead of being at the front of the line of all general revenue funds.
I would caution against pessimism. Every setback is just the next step to victory. There is still a lot of time in the session. As many lobbyists will tell you, it ain’t dead until sine die. That’s especially true of a bill that a Governor has put his reputation behind. If the Governor wants the bill, he can find a way to pick up a vote or two.
One vote from winning a tax increase is pretty darn amazing in itself. Ask any long-time lobbyist, and they will tell you that is historical. You’re almost there. I know it’s tough to understand, and you may feel disrespected losing the first vote, but it’s important not to give up, or to start the name-calling. This is really the first inning. A Governor has lots of at bats if he really wants something. This bill could go down, but something else can be hoghoused. Just keep putting on the pressure. Do it respectfully and with data.
Now the real question is will they give themselves a pay raise? Especially since SB 160 is currently deferred for more discussion.
Every democrat in Pierre needs to make the statement that if education doesn’t deserve a raise, then they don’t either. Let the Republicans line their own pockets but being 37th in legislature pay isn’t the same number is 51st.
Why is 46:23 not valid as a 2/3 majority?
Because of the 1 excused vote?
If so, that does not seem to make sense.
Please clarify for me. Thanks!
Cory, I like your idea at 21:25, at the end, but are we quite there yet even from a parliamentary standpoint? Cannot a bill be radically amended and successfully, if it allows legislators to support a “new” bill, which does not have a tax increase like the former self?
It just seems to me, that beyond the regressive tax issue, that to have a designated 1/2 cent of the sales tax for education and teacher pay itself creates its own universe it has to live with and within and if you buy my prediction of the demise of sales tax revenues in the future do to e-commerce, then the solvency will eat at its self.
However, if you put teacher pay into a greater universe as a part of the general revenue funds then its likelihood of being protected as a “scare cow” is more realistic and intellectually honest as a legislated piece.
I remember back in 1983, when the city of Sioux Falls added a penny to the city’s sales tax levy increasing it from 1 cent to 2 cents. This additional cent was suppose to be for roads and their maintenance only. Today, that penny is called the capital improvement fund, which means it can be used for roads (hopefully) or to pay for a new garden at the Pavilion. On needs to be careful for what they wish for and a designated tax can be changed overtime as can programs funded within the general revenue fund, I have to admit, too, but the latter lives in a universe that is doable and survivable, the former lives in an universe which will collapse unto itself, if it is not first a victim of double speak or political renaming first, that is.
JKC, once again we think alike in our goals, but your universe of what reality or possible right now is a pipedream. Education has been last on the priority list. In other words, after all the other needs are considered and paid for, the Republican-run state government assigns the remainder to education. I may be a bit tired and slow after a long day, but what assurance are we getting that education will be a priority under your dream of right wingers joining with you to fund education without a tax increase?
Anybody want to take a guess as to which republican naysayer is in the governor’s woodshed getting the what for from grandpa cheap? There’s got to be a least one weak link.
Darin, “priority” as a political approach is as dependent as a designated 1/2 cent is upon political acceptance and continuance, but the latter can easily be renamed or redirected and must live in its own economic universe, in terms of gross revenue. However, the former is a part of a greater economic universe and thus naturally more protected because it basks in a greater sea of revenue and only actual dollars committed can speak for it unlike a designated name and or fuzzy revenue directorates, which can mask as solvency. The Sioux Falls increase in its sales tax in the 1980s for roads is a good example of this concern on my part.
I might also add, that although the initial Democratic idea to get rid of the sales tax on food and increase the tax on everything else by 1 % has been shown to be revenue neutral in terms of its burden upon the middle class on down, and forgetting for a moment the fact that the Democratic plan itself by relying on sales taxes itself gives further political efficacy to the concept of sales taxes as a revenue means which I think is wrong to do, that at least the initial Democratic idea kept the enhanced sales tax revenues within a greater universe which protect it in ways as I have suggested the general revenue fund approach would achieve.
However, abandoning the Democratic plan for the Governor’s plan is fundamentally a massive change by Democrats in Pierre which makes the Democrats vulnerable in being able to argue how they plan to protect teacher pay in the future with a designated 1/2 cent increase in the future as a minority party in particular, when the 1/2 cent is completely dependent upon its own economic universe unlike the initial Democratic plan. Not to mention that the “priority” point is lost when it is not a part of a greater universe.
The reason teachers need $48000 to teach 180 days a year and the reason they go elsewhere to teach is that almost every one of them , even into their 40’s are still strapped with student loans .Between the colleges that encouraged the borrowing and raised costs accordingly and the unscrupulous lenders that have become wealthy,a great disservice has been done to all of us. Solve the student loan problem and the teacher pay crisis will disappear.
Nice to see this failed hopefully it stays failed
Martin, your math is right, but the House requires a 2/3 vote of all members, not just members present.
The House Republicans are tired of taking the heat on raising teacher salaries. Gosch has the votes locked down in the Whip Group meetings to stop any tax increase. Look for the Republicans to amend HB 1182 today with Gosch’s plan of using existing revenue and projected growth and send it to the Senate. Gosch’s plan is a lot like what the Democrats in the legislature have been advocating for in past years knowing a tax increase is not going to pass with the TEA Party Republicans that control about a third of the votes. The Senate can put the half penny increase back in, get the Governor’s support, and force a conference committee. At the end, when teachers are still 51st in the national pay rankings, and when schools have unfilled and inadequately filled teaching positions the Democrats need to rally all educators to the polls. There are too many educators in the state that do not vote for their personal best finincial interest!
Daryl, families don’t have to cut one thing to invest in another. Sometimes they raise revenue by working harder and making more money.
Furthermore, the Declaration of Independence does not declare that we must never raise taxes. The famous complaint of our Revolutionaries was not, “No taxation!” but “No taxation without representation!” We have representation; we can quite legitimately talk about raising taxes to meet necessary public needs. Read more here:
https://thehistoricpresent.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/revolutionary-war-myth-2-americans-didnt-want-to-pay-taxes/
Daryl, let me know what district you are in. I’ll make sure my friends and I do some mailing and calling to send ten people to the polls to vote for your Rep for supporting higher teacher pay to ensure we outnumber you.
Oldan, reducing student loan debt is a good policy goal (thus, vote for Paula Hawks to replace Kristi Noem!). But that’s won’t raise South Dakota’s hamstringing teacher pay, and it won’t stop debt-relieved graduates from heading out of state for better pay.
Sadly HB1182 is not about teacher pay. It is about tax and spend liberalism that feed the crony capitalists’ pockets. HB1130 will take money out of the crony capitalists’ pockets and put into the pockets of teachers. I don’t think the Democrats are serious about defeating crony capitalists, since they are your tax and spend cousins.
Maybe teachers need to stay home for a couple of weeks. Put in an application to one of the better states around us. Maybe they need to nail together a few picket signs. Maybe South Dakota needs to feel what it is like to not have the people that spend more time with our kids then anyone else. Maybe it is time for the teachers in South Dakota to take action because our leaders are snubbing you again! Maybe it is time for the S word!
Daryl, in fact I have read the Declaration of Independence. I especially like this, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these re life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men . . .” I get that there is no better pathway to liberty and the pursuit of happiness than a strong education. I get that to secure the access that education is the responsibility of the government. In fact, that very obligation is written into our state constitution. So yes, Daryl, I have read AND UNDERSTAND the weight of the words and the promises intrinsic to both the US and SD founding fathers and know education to be central to those promises of opportunity.
But as long as we are on the topic of Jeffersonian democracy, looking at the vote yesterday, I see the Majority Leader, Assistant Majority Leader, the Majority Whip all as no votes. The Republican caucus rank-and-file (as well as the Democrat caucus) supported 1182 in opposition to the leadership against it. I see an unprecedented push from groups both inside and outside education pushing for 1182. I see polling that demonstrates strong support of the public for 1182. So where is, as Jefferson phrased it, “the consent of the governed” in that leadership?
Charlie Hoffman’s District 23 Reps both voted yes. It sounds like Charlie would have, too:
Charlie’s a conservative I could work with in the Legislature.
John KC, I can’t accept the no-win situation you appear to paint. If Dems have no path to victory, it’s not because of their position for or against the Governor’s plan; it’s bigger issues and party weakness.
On sales tax as a non-solution: I agree. When the Blue Ribbon plan came out last fall, I linked to an article saying sales tax long-term won’t capture the wealth growth of the modern economy. We need tax reform that would better capture the available wealth.
But now I’m trying to talk like my pragmatists friends: sales tax can pass. Pass it this year, and we will get the cash we need to raise teacher pay in 2016–2017. Then when we school the naysayers at the polls in November and send a stronger Democratic caucus to Pierre in 2017, the decks will be cleared of this controversial issue and we’ll be able to turn to the question of tax reform cleanly and backed with a popular mandate to do what we need to preserve and build on the good work we do this year in solving the teacher shortage. It’s just like how we couldn’t do the road bill and teacher pay last year simultaneously: the Legislature is a blind, sluggardly ox that can only take so much medicine at once, but by gum, we’d better get some medicine down its throat this year.
Madman, I like that line on raises. No action on Senate Bill 160 until the full package to guarantee teacher pay has passed… and even then, no YES on SB 160 unless they remove the provision that allows legislators to collect their per diem even when they are absent from Session.
Strike? Revolution? In a year with ten ballot measures and growing voter attention and discontent, such dramatic words may not be complete fantasy.
Well, respectfully the “it’s bigger issues and party weakness” are the parents of my “no-win situation” analysis, however.
John KC, dare I boil your statement down to this: “Dems positions on HB 1182 and anything else are irrelevant, because Dems will lose anyway”?
Except, that they are relevant or complicit as enablers to the Republicans continue support of a regressive tax system in this state.
John and Cory, both of you seem to be making the point that political parties have no place in true governance. In the I win – you lose world of Democrat and Republican, effective policy has paid the price over and over.
“In the I win – you lose world of Democrat and Republican, effective policy has paid the price over and over.”
But why is that, O? Because Democrats have not been true Democrats and Republicans have not been true Republicans or is it merely a classical example of true partisan politics? I would argue it has been the former. Neither party is doing it’s job. Whether it be a former Republican vice-President who claims “deficits do not matter,” or a current Democratic President whose own vice-President finds a need to inform him that the signing of the ACA is a “big xxxxing deal.” It makes me wonder sometimes what has become of our two major parties nationally and this unraveling speaks to the rise of everyone from Trump and Cruz on the right to Sanders on the left as well as the inability to enact “effective policy.”
The divisiveness in Washington is a product of two things in my estimation, primarily. One, is the successful gerrymandering of congressional districts to the favor of Republican candidates, and the other, two, is how the “One” compliments a revolt within Republican ranks nationally which is fed by an assumed cooperation between Democrats and Republicans in Washington in the last decade do to the blank check given over the Iraq war for many years, joint cooperation on Medicare part D without adequate funding, and the federal bank bailouts as major examples of partisan meshing prior to the advent of the “TeaParty” wing of the Republican party and the current “I win – you lose” phenomenon.
It has been the absence of the two major political parties being their true self which has actually fed a greater radicalism within the two political parties, which further divides the parties.
Now in Pierre, with the vote on teacher pay and an increase in the sales tax as a result is in some ways apples to oranges relative to the national political scene given the Republicans great dominance in Pierre as opposed to a greater draw between Democrats and Republicans in Washington. But to the degree Pierre and Washington politics are similar, is the fact that the Democrats willingness to embrace the efficacy of sales taxes as a just tax system are analogous to the positions both major political parties took in the last decade in Washington of “meshing,” which eventually led to the “TeaParty,” Trump, Cruz, and Sanders on the Democratic side?
Cooperation is important to affect consensus in politics, but when parties fail to be themselves from day one then they promote eventually a significant radicalism which destroys their ability to govern at all. It is not the duty of the two major parties in this country, whether it be in Washington or Pierre, to try to be the other party. It is the duty of the two parties to be their true selves.
Don’t put a bandaid on the situation. Give the TEACHERS 100%. Greenfield opposed because she was burned on the video lottery bill, as a teacher. If the words in the bill would have said the money from taxes would have went to teachers and not to education, she would have been a yea.
I don’t see any solution, john in your analysis if correct.
who is saying this? could you cite a source? I have a problem with common equivocation from republicans that republicans and democrats are all the same. not fundamentally, I would say. we are winning, nationally, we may take one of the houses, the presidency and more than one supreme court post. we were blind sided by Paul Ryan’s 1.09.08 DC Obstruction dinner and the scorched earth tactics republicans are willing to play. if they think they will prevail on Scalia’s empty seat, they are fu*king crazy. WE LEARNED THAT LESSON. kochs too are teaching us what is at stake. everything for republican (elite) power.
not sure Obama wasn’t aware of how big a fu*king deal the ACA is. imperfect by far, but next comes big pharma, medical and insurance. and Bernie is not in any way like trump or cruz. not in any way. he has integrity. neither of them do. nor Rubio, probably. he just seems young and dumb right now, but not to be underestimated, as another beautiful person.
just streaming consciousness, John. I have appreciated your thoughtfulness.
09, sorry. (core, corp, corp., Corps :)