Open Letter: Veto SB 159, Don’t Subsidize Private Schools with Public Money

I want a veto just so we can test whether the Legislature would allow Alex Jensen to cast an illegal vote on Veto Day on behalf of the district in which he no longer lives.

But I also want a veto of Senate Bill 159 because stealth vouchers are ALEC-backed corporate welfare seeking to unconstitutionally undermine public education.

Cathy Brechteslbauer agrees with me. She has sent her argument for a veto of SB 159 to Governor Dennis Daugaard; she shares that argument (with charts!) with the public here:

11 March 2016

Dear Governor Daugaard,

I am writing to ask you to veto SB159, the diversion of tax money to private schools.

1. Principally, those funds are supposed to be for the public good, not religious use.

2. Consider this: If you sign the bill, which state services are you going to cut in order to provide these scholarships to private schools?

3. Why should insurance companies get to decide the priority for these two million dollars? In any given year, the legislature and governor may see other priorities that should be addressed with public revenues, but this money will not be available.

4. Can’t insurance companies simply donate to private schools directly and be satisfied to receive charitable deductions on their federal taxes? Why should South Dakota have to give up revenue for businesses’ particular charities?

5. Some details in this bill are questionable. Note the bill’s Section 1(3)(a). Chart 1’s right-hand column shows the annual incomes that are the eligibility limits for SB159’s scholarships. The bill’s supporters claimed they just wanted “to help low-income students.” But “low income” is generally considered to mean income below 200% of poverty level (shown in Chart 2). Some of these private school scholarships could go to low-income students, but they could also legally go to families considerably above that. South Dakota’s median household income is $50,979 [ACS 2014].

Chart 1 [2015-2016 school year]

Family size	Federal Pov. level	Free lunch limit 130% FPL	Reduced price lunch limit 185%FPL	Scholarship limit in SB159 277.5%FPL
2	15,930	20,709	29,471	44,206
3	20,090	26,117	37,167	55,750
4	24,250	31,525	44,863	67,294
5	28,410	36,933	52,559	78,838
6	32,570	42,341	60,255	90,382
7	36,730	47,749	67,951	101,926
8	40,890	53,157	75,647	113,470

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-03-31/pdf/2015-07358.pdf

6. The actual imcome limit can go even higher. Note also the bill’s Section 1(3)(b). A student who receives one of these scholarships is automatically eligible the next semester, whether the family income remains below the already generous eligibility limit or not. What is to keep a school from giving a minimal scholarship to a student, and keep giving one to that student every semester, just to keep the student eligible? In that way, a scholarship could go to that student at some point, regardless of income. This situation is ripe for favoritism, if not corruption. In the bill (See its section 4.) there is no preference prescribed for the lowest income students.

Even high incomes can become eligible. We know that household incomes tend to increase at the same time children are growing. Once a student receives one of these scholarships, there is no stopping the eligibility limit. Thus, not only incomes that are already above the median, but also even high incomes could end up with scholarships. Yet, this bill was sold to legislators as a way “to help low-income students.”

7. There are other needs more pressing for public revenue. You may have several in mind, but rather than giving away revenue, consider this one. As funds become available, income eligibility for the state’s childcare assistance should be restored to the pre-2012 levels. Chart 2 shows the income limits for this assistance, both for assistance requiring co-payments and for assistance without co-payments, both before and after the 2012 cuts. These limits are much more in the income range of families that should receive state assistance, rather than scholarships based on SB159’s limits shown above and, as just pointed out above, possibly no limit at all.

Chart 2 [also using 2015-2016 school year poverty level, for comparison]

Family size	Federal Poverty Level	200% FPL was the limit for childcare assistance with co-payment before 2012	175% FPL is the limit for childcare assistance with co-payment after the 2012 cuts	105% FPL, was the limit for childcare assistance with no co-payment before 2012	100% FPL, is the limit for childcare assistance with no co-payment after the 2012 cuts
2	15,930	31,860	27,877	16,726	15,930
3	20,090	40,180	35,157	21,094	20,090
4	24,250	48,500	42,437	25,462	24,250
5	28,410	56,820	49,717	29,830	28,410
6	32,570	65,140	56,997	34,198	32,570
7	36,730	73,460	64,277	38,566	36,730
8	40,890	81,780	71,557	42,934	40,890

The great promise of welfare reform, that has helped so much, was that parents who go out and get employment will be supported with assistance that helps make work pay and makes work life more affordable. Budget cuts may have been needed in 2012, but when we have revenue now, can’t the assistance for our lowest-wage workers be restored? Childcare eats up a severely large portion of income for low-wage workers and even low-middle-income workers. This is especially so in our one-breadwinner families, the very parents trying to avoid or get off welfare programs.

Please, Governor, this public money should not be going to private schools. The state should deter-mine how public revenue should be used. When funds are available, please restore the childcare assistance for our low-wage workers. In the lives of our state’s children, this childcare assistance would mean less chaos and deprivation, two factors that do not bode well for children’s futures.

Thank you for considering this veto request and this funding request when funds are available.

Sincerely,

Cathy Brechtelsbauer
2900 Poplar Dr, Sioux Falls 57105. 605-335-6222

Brechtelsbauer mentions the possibility of corruption in this private-school subsidy. Brechtelsbauer says she wouldn’t expect corruption in private schools, but sad things have happened in South Dakota.

Governor Daugaard, you’ve already vetoed one bill that would have dragged the state into court. Spare us another round of unnecessary lawsuits. Veto SB 159.