Press "Enter" to skip to content

Governor Signs Stealth Vouchers, Vetoes Grassy Buffer Strip Tax Fairness

What? Governor Dennis Daugaard has signed Senate Bill 159, the two-million-dollar giveaway of tax dollars to private schools via insurance companies, but he’s vetoed Senate Bill 136, the tax incentive for farmers to restore grassy buffer strips along streams and lakes?

Bob Mercer says the Governor has vetoed SB 136 on the grounds of vagueness and unfairness in the law. Funny—Senate Bill 136 sounded perfectly clear and fair to me. Farmers take cropland out of production, provide the public good of reducing erosion and pollution while improving wildlife habitat, and in return for their sacrifice, we tax them less on those narrow strips of land at a rate that reflects how they are actually using that land.

Senate Bill 159 is the vague and unfair bill, leaving taxpayers in the dark about who is getting tax credits for which private schools, in violation of our state constitution. SB 159 blurs the lines between public and private schools when our Legislature should be focusing on its singular duty to make our free, fair, and universal public schools the best educational option in the state. And it lets one favored industry dodge taxes to promote religion, leaving the rest of us taxpayers to cover the funding gap they leave.

We can’t fix SB 159 and its ALECky anti-public-school corporate welfare on Veto Day, but when legislators gather in Pierre on Tuesday, they can fix the Governor’s error on SB 136 and its promotion of conservation and fair taxation. SB 136 passed the Senate 35–0 and the House 58–9; let’s sustain those veto-proof majorities and send tax relief to some real environmentalist farmers who deserve it.

39 Comments

  1. Daryl Root 2016-03-25 12:28

    Well now. Imagine that. I agree.

  2. Rorschach 2016-03-25 12:59

    Somebody needs to sue, sue, sue on SB 159.

  3. Darin Larson 2016-03-25 13:20

    So the governor decided it would be better to have the state pay to defend the lawsuits then for him to have to face his private religious school backers in Dell Rapids and Sioux Falls.

  4. Paul Seamans 2016-03-25 14:10

    The SD Corn Growers Association, who is showing ads about how much that they care about our water, was probably instrumental in Gov. Daugaard’s decision to veto a bill that would have protected that water.

  5. Mary, Quite Contrary 2016-03-25 14:27

    Is there an option to do a referendum on the stealth vouchers?

  6. Kim Conlin 2016-03-25 14:50

    Agree with you Mary. Can we and how do we refer SB 159?How big of a hill to climb is this??

  7. jake 2016-03-25 16:18

    159 is definitely unconstitutional and wrong. He got it ‘ass-backwards’ (not surprisingly in this state).. Referendum?

  8. MD 2016-03-25 17:57

    SB159 is a great example of why the Republican’s idea of finding the money for teacher raises from a current funding source was doomed from the beginning. They are too busy handing that money back out.
    The cycle continues.

  9. Mark Winegar 2016-03-25 19:12

    Governor Daugaard make bad decisions again. We need someone good to replace him.

  10. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-03-25 19:27

    Oh, Mary and Kim, don’t get me all excited!

    Yes, we could refer Senate Bill 159. Just like referring the youth minimum wage and incumbent protection plan last year, someone needs to take out a petition and collect 13,871 signatures from registered South Dakota voters (of any party!). Referendum petitions cannot circulate until after the Legislature adjourns on Tuesday, March 29 (avoid complications: start on Wednesday, March 30). By my count, the petition has to be submitted to Secretary Krebs by Monday, june 27.

    Here’s the guide I published last year on how to circulate a referendum petition:

    https://dakotafreepress.com/2015/03/29/how-to-save-democracy-referendum-petitions-and-circulation-guide/

    Kim, Mary, who all would be interested in sponsoring and circulating such a referendum petition? Would SDEA be willing to go to work on this petition? How about ASBSD? Any PTAs?

  11. Darin Larson 2016-03-25 19:38

    Cory, count me in!

  12. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-03-25 19:42

    Uh oh—anyone else care to join Darin in this movement? Referring SB 159 would bring us to eleven ballot measures. If the medical cannabis petition challenge fails, SB 159 could appear on the ballot as Referred Law 24.

    And before anybody takes out any petitions, are there any other bills worth referring that would provide good petitioning synergy with SB 159?

  13. Union Co 2016-03-25 20:42

    Can Medicaid expansion be referred?

  14. leslie 2016-03-25 21:38

    daugaard: anti-environmental sustainability/pro-ins. industry/anti-education (except welders)

  15. frank 2016-03-26 06:34

    Can the sales tax bill to raise teacher pay be referred????? Tax the poor on food and clothing that is required to live but don’t give any money to private education? Do private colleges get any public tax money from the state or from the cities they are located in?

  16. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-03-26 07:27

    Actually, Frank, no, we can’t refer the regressive sales tax increase, because the Legislature passed it with an emergency clause allowing it to take effect on June 1, a month before the usual enactment date. The Governor thought ahead on that one.

    Frank’s second sentence is a complete non sequitur; private education is private—by definition, not public, not eligible for public funding. Frank might as well have said, “Tax the poor on necessities but don’t give any money to McDonald’s?”

    Private colleges probably should not get public tax money, either. But if Frank wants to discuss the Opportunity Scholarship, I’ll note that K-12 and college are different creatures. The state has a constitutional obligation to provide free K-12 education to everyone. Children have a legal obligation to attend K-12 until age 18.

  17. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-03-26 07:29

    Alas, we can’t put Medicaid expansion on the ballot: we can only refer laws that the Legislature has passed… and the point of referral is to stop bad laws. To enact something the Legislature has refused to do, we need an initiative, and we have to circulate and submit initiative petitions by one year before the election (which is absurdly early and burdensome—we should be able to respond to election-year do-nothingness by putting new measures on the ballot just as we can refer election-year mistakes that pass).

  18. mike from iowa 2016-03-26 08:07

    You need a buyer’s remorse option of up to a year after an election. If you aren’t happy with your selection,you can return it for a replacement of equal or better performance. An election lemon law, if you will.

  19. John 2016-03-26 11:04

    The private religious backers will only have satisfaction when they impose their religion on all of us and when they institute state/national religion. Instead they should all go to nations with such. In the meantime, sue. Send their offerings to the lawyers for it’s evident they value lawyers over serving the poor, hungry, etc.

  20. Douglas Wiken 2016-03-26 11:19

    I hope some insurance company decides to help THE CHURCH OF BILL even if it out of state. When we get the private Agnostics and Atheist College of Logic and Science incorporated, I sure hope the fine insurance companies will dump a bunch of the taxes they don’t have to pay into that new educational institution.

    This piece of crap legislation is an insult to the intelligence of every South Dakotan ….even those who think they will benefit from this scum-bag legislation.

  21. Roger Beranek 2016-03-26 13:29

    SB159 is such a winding path to use to support parents ability to make decisions about their children’s education. These parents money, collected and re-branded “tax dollars” being funneled through the different entities before it can even be eligible to help them prevent the public indoctrination being shoved into their kids in public schools (whether true or not doesn’t matter. If they believe it, we should not ignore their parental rights) So I dislike this bill as being a half measure when a real voucher system is needed, not more stealth social engineering.

  22. Darin Larson 2016-03-26 16:24

    What the heck are the corn growers doing obstructing a common sense carrot for being “true environmentalists” ?????? Stupid is as stupid does.

    If there are problems with vagueness, etc. why didn’t the corn growers help make this a better bill? Why did it pass 35-0 in the Senate if it is too vague?

    My corn checkoff dollars go to pay for commercials about true environmentalism while more of my dollars are being used to pay Matt McCaulley to fight common sense environmentalism in Pierre??

    When you advertise one thing and do another you just lost me.

  23. mike from iowa 2016-03-26 16:55

    No legislator has voted against SB 136 in Senate Ag, the full Senate, or House Ag. The only opposition in testimony has come from the Department of Revenue and the South Dakota Corn Growers Association. DOR’s Mike Houdyshell and Corn Growers’ lobbyist Matt McCaulley say they’re all for conservation and wildlife. They just don’t like the tax implications of SB 136. Both expressed concern to Senate Ag that we don’t know how many acres would be affected by SB 136, how much land valuation we would lose, and how much tax burden we’d have to shift to other taxpayers. (The Corn Growers have opposed other measures to ease the tax burden on conservation-minded farmers who protect grasslands.)
    https://dakotafreepress.com/2016/03/06/sb-136-promotes-grassy-buffer-strips-conservation-and-wildlife/

  24. Darin Larson 2016-03-26 17:15

    If they don’t know how many acres would be affected, their lazy or disingenuous.

    The tax burden shifting argument shows how little the leadership at the corn growers cares about doing something for the environment. The amount of tax shifted would be miniscule across the state, but we can’t make one voluntary common sense program a little more attractive to those who want to do the right thing.

    The Farmers Union is in favor of the bill along with about everybody else.

  25. grudznick 2016-03-26 17:20

    How can farmers have a union? Serious question. Seriously, there’s a farmer’s union? Who would bust it? There can be no farmer’s union, that’s a made up thing.

  26. mike from iowa 2016-03-26 17:34

    http://www.sdfu.org/

    South Dakota’s Farmers Union, Grudz. Don’t bother about the link. Have your Granddaughter open it and read it to you.

  27. mike from iowa 2016-03-26 17:37

    Haven’t bothered to check,but if the Farm Burro was against this bill,it sure wouldn’t surprise me. Maybe if it had been written for giant korporate farms.

  28. grudznick 2016-03-26 17:37

    I’ll be damned. They should go on strike for higher wages and to work less hours.

  29. private richard 2016-03-26 19:49

    no, bigger pickups, houses, trusts.

  30. grudznick 2016-03-26 20:53

    Pvt. Richard, you might be right. They have some might big pickups, houses, and trusts but I am sure this heinous Farmer’s Union (S.D.F.U.) is wanting more. But that is what unions are about…greed and more greed.

  31. Charlie Johnson 2016-03-26 22:00

    I pose this question on Lee Shoenbeck’s FB post this evening. “What will the legislature do once the Muslim community establish private schools and wish for their students to receive tuition scholarships.” Lee told me to quit the “hate stuff”. “It’s Easter and I will delete any further comments you post”

  32. leslie 2016-03-26 23:00

    what is Regents’ mission? Economic development? Higher education? Personal profit? Should a Regent sell land to state? Transparency?

  33. mike from iowa 2016-03-27 07:05

    Grudz, you’ve been brain washed by Fake Noize and right wing talk blabbio. Get yer brain washed with brain bleach to clear the dust and cobwebs and look around for yourself and see what reality looks like.

    Unions are what got better pay and benefits,safer working conditions, less child labor,shorter,more uniform work weeks, overtime pay, weekends off, etc. They helped level the negotiating field between workers and management.They have done tremendous good for millions of Americans including non-union members.

    Some unions were/are bad,especially when infiltrated by mobsters. Your side and their right leaning,pro korporate, anti-working stiff courts have ravaged most unions to benefit the wingnut party and their owners-the 1%. When the court gets its rightful return to the center left,hopefully korporations will no longer be persons and unions will be able to protect workers again.

  34. mike from iowa 2016-03-27 08:40

    and another thing,Grudz, unions take on apprentices and train them and they are immediately capable of fully functioning for other trades or businesses that hire them It saves business beau coup bucks in hiring and training their own workforce. Businesses in Minnesota are tickled pink because Walker and thugs are running union workers out of Koch -consin and into higher paying,worker friendly Minnesota.

  35. grudznick 2016-03-27 09:31

    There is not and should not be a level playing field between management and workers. The management are the bosses. The workers are the workers and if they work harder they get more money. If they don’t like their job they have the complete freedom to get another.

    I am going to be treated to a mighty large late breakfast today and then nap all afternoon. I am wishing everybody a nice day today no matter if you are union or not.

  36. mike from iowa 2016-03-27 10:01

    How many hard workers have lost their overtime pay? Hpw many have had their hours cut so they don’t qualify as full-time workers? How many have lost their benefits so shareholders can receive a few more pennies? How many have to work several high paying jobs just to make ends meet? How many can retire comfortably after having their pensions stolen by korporate amerika?

    You don’t need a large breakfast. You are full of it.

  37. Roger Beranek 2016-03-27 14:17

    The Fixed benefit pension deals, instead of fixed contribution 401k or similar accounts that can be properly funded and survive bankruptcy, was one of the must moronic ideas that corporations and unions came up with. Probably the 2nd worse was the attempt to control CEO pay, That led directly to the use of options… And the skyrocketing of CEO pay. The link between the two things are people like Mike who think it’s a good idea to remedy perceived injustice with government power, and then blame the inevitable failure and compounding of that injustice on the free market instead of his own progressive policies that have generated crony capitalism for decades.

  38. caheidelberger Post author | 2016-03-27 14:58

    Charlie, like you, I eagerly await our Muslim neighbors’ efforts to put SB 159 to the test. Rep. Schoenbeck himself spoke of the immigrants who want to use SB 159 simply to enjoy the American dream of educating their children as they see fit, in their own faith.

    Of course, for our Muslim neighbors to take advantage of this program, they’ll have to convince some South Dakota insurance company to give money for scholarships for their Muslim students. And therein lies another rub: what guarantee do we have in SB 159 that the insurance companies receiving this state subsidy will grant their scholarships equally to all applicants, without regard to religion?

  39. mike from iowa 2016-03-27 15:07

    Now you are getting into the “keep gubmint small and off the backs of people” argument. If insurance companies discriminate,well tough noogies. That was probably part of the whole scheme to direct aid to Kristian schools only.

    Otoh,this is a pilot project so maybe they are going to make sure it works before inviting other faiths to join in. You know,make sure their buttocks is covered.

Comments are closed.