Poll: Hey SD, do WE THE PEOPLE want a $160,000,000 tax increase?

Interesting poll. I very much prefer a penny sales tax raise and using reserves rather than the governor's 10% spending cuts. I feel that those cuts will do too much damage to our state and are a bad idea.

You ask an interesting question about where the sales tax money should be allocated. I think education should be the main priority, but you bring up an excellent point about using part of that money for Medicaid. My problem with that idea is a lack of trust in the legislature. I have no faith in the conservative Republican supermajority to do anything that will actually help people. So it's very hard for me to trust them with the $160 million to make sure it goes to education and Medicaid. I worry that they'd give it all away to corporations or something.

The Legislature should lead and solve the problem now, in time for schools to make their FY2012 budgets, rather than handing off the responsibility in a general election. You should fight to get those two-thirds votes in Pierre rather than taking it as a given that they can't be changed.

By the way, if we did throw a special election, what statute governs the date? When could such a vote happen? Must we wait until this November?

Teapartiers are not hypocritical in wishing that a vote not go to the people. Teapartiers understand that we live in republic, not a democracy. It is stupefying how many "Republicans" don't realize we live in a republic! You should try listening next time you attend a meeting.

If this goes to a vote the "mob" will likely decide to loot from the taxpayers and hand that plunder over to their special interest. (The term is legal plunder. Read Frederic Basiat's "The Law" to get a grasp on the concept.)

The sad thing is that the RINOs will likely force the teaparty movement to go to the ballot box (democracy) to force the needed changes that the party is too chicken (or ignorant) to make.

Albert Perito

P.S.
In case you didn't get the memo… NO NEW TAXES!!! (BTW… that INCLUDES fee increases! You know… like auto registration…)

Mr. Hickey,

It doesn't matter if we cut Medicaid 10%, the system needs to be audited. There are those on this program who use medicaid to supplement their income. There is also those who live together and chose not to get married because their medicaid benefits would disappear.

I vote no penny increase.

Interesting thought, when the increase in property tax was voted on, wasn't it for education?, but went where???? The general "I don't know or where its spent" fund… Gambling revenues, again for education and again in the general fund. Honestly I do not trust the average and many above average politicians to wisely manage our tax dollars. That being said, it seems increasing the taxes one way or another (more gambling is a tax increase also in its own way) is most likely going to result in more spending somehow, it always seems to. It seems that fiscal responsibility is a nice key word thrown around, but ask for real sacrifice (not just the people paying more) and watch where it goes. Really it seems most states are in the the negative, down economy or whatever you want to blame, the truth is we spend more than we should, we've spent more than we should have and now we have to own up to the consequence. Higher taxes or less spending, pretty simple math either way, not pleasant either way, but we have been living on a bubble made of economic growth and lived foolishly. Auditing the system in place is a nice idea, but there are already people in place to do that, who are not doing it, spending more to find where were spending to much???? (some comedian wishes they could write this stuff seriously)
Steve I trust you and your judgement, but you alone do not run things nor decide how the money is spent in the end. It's committees, agendas, and how the idea will sell on the media and to the people. I don't think there is an easy answer to this.
Is it cut funding to corn based ethanol? Maybe go to garbage based fuel by products and help bring down the price of food overall by it??
Is it test all state and federal aid recipients for drugs and modify what aid they get based on that?
Is it workfare instead of welfare?
I don't know but some cuts are probably in order, some taxes as well but again I do not trust the people steering this boat to not ground it on rock of debt.

I appreciate the feedback and hope more comes in. 38 comments so far on my facebook update on this question.

Cory - if the legislature set up the framework for this the date would probably be in April. If we stayed out of it it would have to wait until November. I'm not for the sales tax increase and neither is the supermajority here - why would I try to persuade anyone. Those votes are not here. In terms of a tax increase out of the legislature, I'm saying the best you can hope for is for the legislature to open the door for special election. That's what this post is about.

Albert - o yes it does feel very hypocritical to this Tea Partier. I made much hay about the govt going against what the people wanted. Were you silent during that time and content to let those we elected ignore us, the angry mob, and happy that they ignored what the nation was saying? No, you weren't. And now we are getting quite a swell of folks wanting us to not just look at the expense side but deal with the revenue side. How can a tea partier speak against an election of the will of the people?

I guess I'm a RINO now, is that what you are saying? That's pretty funny to me.

An additional thought on my view that user fees and taxes are not the same…

I recently asked a fellow who disagreed with me on this point if he planned to keep the prices in his store the same forever. His obvious answer was No. I asked "why not, things are already too high priced?" He responded with something to this effect… "because costs are higher than they've ever been and keep going up and I can't sell these things at the prices I used to be able to sell them."

My point exactly. For 20 years costs for road repairs and replacement costs have gone up and up and up, every year for 20 years. Yet in that same twenty year time frame, fees have only gone up once. The State of South Dakota cannot afford to offer us roads at the same prices of ten years ago. We have ag producers who CANT GET THEIR PRODUCT TO MARKET because they can't go over the roads anymore. No kidding. In Committee, those who say don't raise fees were unable to offer any solutions to addressing our deteriorating road situation. Hate to shoot over the bow of my libertarian friends here but hello, against ANY govt, against ANY fees/taxes… and yet no solutions for how to pay for national security, defense and infrastructure??

Here's more from me on HB1192, which BTW, passed the Senate yesterday and now heads to the governors desk… http://www.voicescarryblog.com/raising-sd-vehicle-registration-fees-long-long-overdue/

April? That fast? Wow! I didn't think we had such provisions. When I checked SDCL on provisions for referrals, I thought all I saw were rules specifying that referenda could only happen at the biennial general election.

I said April, it could be May, August, whenever - the legislature could pick a day to hold a special election and write that day into a hog-housed bill that provided for a special 2011 initiative process. I said April to illustrate that this legislative route is the best way to decide sooner than later and the outcome of the election, if it were early, could leave time for cuts to be minimized for FY2012 budgeting. These are all maybes stacked upon maybes. It's unclear to me if the Gov would support any of this, and overriding his veto is most certainly a pipe dream for those who want a tax hike. Based on the Gov's comment on this matter in the above sited RCJ article, I'm inclined to think the Gov would be agreeable to the legislature setting the course for a special election, though I could be dead wrong. I'm saying I'm ok with the legislature giving guidance to a ballot initiative for a tax increase special election as I see that happening with or without us - and it's better to be involved in it than not be involved in it. We have been elected to provide leadership.

I too would vote for a sales tax, but I would prefer a small income tax and a small corporate tax and then work on making this a better state and not just a good enough state. Funny that Ronald Reagan had the courage to do this 13 times, but his devotees seem to think that is a horrible idea.

Everyone loves kitchen table analogies so imagine the parent that says to the family. Well, times are hard so we are going to cut back on your health care and education rather than look for a part time job. But don't worry, I'm going to give my company some money in the hopes that they will do better and that it will trickle down to us.

I cannot spend more than I make and so should SD! Cutting costs everyplace they can and ONLY as a last resort increase the tax!

Maybe we aren't thinking outside the box. We currently fund our children and elderly through the taxes on the immoral businesses of gambling and usury.

We find taxes to be repulsive, but gambling and usury…not so much. The state may have a structural deficit, but the party and the people who decided to fund our state on sin are morally bankrupt!

Let's just think ahead a little bit to the hit the nation and South Dakota's economies will face if many of the national cuts are put through. Moody's and Goldman Sachs are saying 2% hit and as many as 700,000 newly unemployed.

Add to that the fact that farm subsidies and ethanol are most likely to get eliminated as well.

So how badly will SD be hurt and then what do we do…cut another 10%?

I probably should ask: have we dispensed with the advisory opinion from the 1995 SD Supreme Court saying that the Legislature can't refer a tax to a public vote? I'd hate to jump on the bandwagon for this solution, skip a more immediate Legislative fix, and then find out after veto day that we can't hold the public vote.

So Pastor Steve, what cuts would Jesus make? Who would Jesus give tax breaks to? Would Jesus approve of a state that had gambling and usury support its children and most vulnerable? If not, why should we?

Guessing these are questions that put you in a bad spot…do I support my party or my Christian convictions. Of course, there is that prosperity gospel thing that you may subscribe to that has scrubbed all of the inconvenient things out of the Bible.

Or what's the other theology that makes so many things convenient for those who choose to ignore the beatitudes…dominion something or other isn't it…?

While I think some cuts would be good the ones proposed are too far reaching. I wouldn't mind a 1% sales tax increase at all. I am a single mom of three and live off a little child support (which is getting smaller every day) and a minimum wage job. Of course we consume far less than many people and our per capita increase for my family would likely not top $40 per year. Its easy to avoid sales tax. Don't buy so much stuff.

Mr. Crompton,

Let's just for a minute say we aren't a family as someone suggested and that we are a business. Our products that we are selling to bring in revenue aren't working, so your plan is to just cut back production, layoff people and start that short road to the bottom.

What if we could tap into a new source of revenue and then think about how we can be leaders instead of staving off a certain path to mediocrity or worse.

I know it goes against our collective grain to think of being great…but just try it for a couple of days and see what you think.

Tom - thanks for sharing your comments. None of them put me in a bad spot. I've been a leader in opposing gambling in our state and most recently put forth legislation challenging our states usury laws. http://www.voicescarryblog.com/vultures-2-angels-0/

Not sure what you are getting at with your comments on the Beatitudes. I'll be happy to send you my book on the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount if you want to know what I think about those sections of Scripture. I spend quite a bit of time in the book - 300 pages- talking about the implications of Jesus' teaching for today. I don't subscribe to the prosperity gospel. What's your point?

I'm not a fan of the 10% across the board cut. It's the cowards way out. It's a way to cut taxes without making any real decisions or really think about. We all lose with that option. I'd rather have the 1 cent sales tax increase.

Thanks for your voice on usury and gambling. Also appreciated your link to your thoughts on the beatitudes. My point is that we as a state through our legislature seem to think that what we learn on Sunday is totally wiped out by Monday.

Glad you don't subscribe to the prosperity gospel.

But you still haven't answered the questions. What would Jesus cut and who would he give tax breaks to?

Sadly we'll curse taxes and embrace sin to fund our children and most vulnerable. Just seems strange that this doesn't create an outrage.

Tom @ 1054am - In my humble opinion, Jesus would view our worries of the future and say this…"Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing?
"Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?

Matthew 6: 25-26.

We still don't know what Jesus would cut do we? Of course he's probably busy listening to prayers from those who are most vulnerable in these cuts.