Press "Enter" to skip to content

Daugaard Appoints Three GOP Candidates to Legislative Vacancies for Special Session Tax Vote

Good thing I footnote-reminded him yesterday!

Having called the Legislature into Special Session come September 12 to raise our taxes, Governor Dennis Daugaard remembered that he’d left three vacancies in our august body languishing on his desk since springtime. He thus today appointed three Republican women, each on the ballot already, to come to Pierre next month and help him hurry along the joys of paying more taxes on our online purchases.

Candidate Maggie Sutton of Sioux Falls goes to work for District 10 in the Senate seat Jenna Netherton abandoned in April for the bright lights of D.C. (or is it Texas, where her AFPF bio says she currently resides with her husband Mike?).

Candidate Scyller Borglum of Rapid City takes the District 32 House seat left empty upon the death of Sean McPherson in April.

Candidate Rebecca Reimer of Oacoma fills the District 26B House left empty by Jim Schaefer when he blew a stop sign and got himself and his fiancée killed at the end of May.

The Special Session will thus give three rookie Republican legislators the chance to cast their first vote for legislation intended to take more tax dollars out of our pockets. Hmm… I wonder how good fiscal conservative Republicans voters will score those votes?


  1. Debbo 2018-08-08 23:58

    We’re they likely to win those races?

  2. Debbo 2018-08-08 23:59

    “Were”, not “we’re”. Damn autocorrect.

  3. Robin 2018-08-09 02:43

    Clear up some confusion for me ,
    What gives Daugaard the authority to ignore part of the Supreme Court Ruling ?

  4. grudznick 2018-08-10 20:44

    Are there pictures of these young ladies anywhere in the blogospherism? We should all know who to be looking for if we run into them at breakfast over the weekends to discuss politics.

  5. Jason 2018-08-11 23:55

    Paul Krugman, Supply-Side Economist
    August 10, 2018 by Dan Mitchell

    « Do Economic Crises Produce Liberalization or More Statism?The Most Uplifting Chart of the 21st Century »
    Paul Krugman, Supply-Side Economist
    August 10, 2018 by Dan Mitchell

    I’ve been writing about the Laffer Curve for decades, making the simple point that there’s not a linear relationship between tax rates and tax revenue.

    To help people understand, I ask them to imagine that they owned a restaurant and decided to double prices. Would they expect twice as much revenue?

    Of course not, people respond. Customers would go to other restaurants, or decide to eat at home. Depending on how customers reacted, the restaurant might even wind up with less revenue.

    Well, that’s how the Laffer Curve works. When tax rates change, that alters incentives to engage in productive behavior (i.e., how much income they earn). In other words, to figure out tax revenue, you have to look at taxable income in addition to tax rates.

    For some odd reason, this is a controversial issue. But it shouldn’t be, because even Paul Krugman agrees about the Laffer Curve.

    My wayward buddy Bruce Bartlett posted a video on Facebook from Samantha Bee’s Full Frontal show. The obvious goal was to mock the Laffer Curve, but this excerpt contains the relevant comments from Paul Krugman.

    And Krugman’s not alone. Many other left-leaning economists also admit there is a Laffer Curve.

    To be sure, as Krugman noted, there is considerable disagreement about the revenue-maximizing tax rate. Folks on the left often say tax rates could be 70 percent while folks on the right think the revenue-maximizing rate is much lower.

    I have two thoughts about this debate. First, if the revenue-maximizing rate is 70 percent, then why did the IRS collect so much additional revenue from upper-income taxpayers when Reagan lowered the top rate from 70 percent to 28 percent?

    Second, I don’t want to maximize revenue for government. That’s why I always make sure my depictions of the Laffer Curve show both the revenue-maximizing point and the growth-maximizing point. At the risk of stating the obvious, I prefer the growth-maximizing point.

    he bottom line is that I think the revenue-maximizing point is probably closer to 30 percent, as shown in my chart. Especially in the long run.

    But I wouldn’t care if the revenue-maximizing rate was actually 50 percent. Politicians should only collect the relatively small amount of revenue that is needed to finance the growth-maximizing level of government spending.

    P.S. As tax rates get closer and closer to the revenue-maximizing point, that means an increasing amount of economic damage per dollar collected.

    P.P.S. Paul Krugman is also right that value-added taxes are not good for exports.

    I suspect that the revenue-maximizing point lies farther to the right than Dan illustrates, simply because almost everyone has to work. You can stop patronizing a restaurant if it doubles its prices, but you still have to feed your family. So for most of us, the disincentive to work kicks in, I think, at a pretty high level. The disincentive to invest is something else; it seems obvious that for people who already have money, the expected rate of after-tax return is a prime driver of decisions.

    But Mitchell makes a real contribution in articulating the difference between revenue-maximizing and growth-maximizing tax rates. The purpose of government is not to squeeze the largest possible amount out of its citizens. The purpose of government is to carry out its legitimate functions as efficiently as possible, so as to enable the lowest reasonable tax rates. If those rates result in more revenue, as Milton Friedman once said, that means you haven’t cut them enough.

  6. mike from iowa 2018-08-12 07:39

    Way to go, Jason. You start out with an intelligent, well thought out paragraph by Krugman and then you splice in all kinds of argle bargle from who knows where.

    Are you trying to become a disciple of the Pompatus of Pablum?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.