We've moved!
DakotaFreePress.com!

Social Icons

twitterfacebooklinkedinrss feed

Monday, March 3, 2008

Legislative Review 2008 -- Getting Our Money's Worth?

With the big rush of the final week of the Legislature, many of us seem to have gotten wrapped up in political horseraces and who's being snarky with whom (Johnson v Kirby, Clinton v Obama, Powers v Sibson...). Maybe it was just a little Pierre fatigue... maybe you don't have to actually be there to catch it!

But with our legislators all back home now, safe and sound, where they can catch up on their work, catch heck from their constituents in person, and blame Governor Rounds for as much as possible, let's take a look at some of what they achieved. Here in no particular order are some bills that caught our interest during the session:

HB 1184 would have created tax incentives for all sorts of renewable energy projects: wind, solar, hydroelectric, hydrogen, biomass (cow poop! landfill gas!), geothermal, and even recycled energy (i.e., making electricity from unused waste heat from other processes). The bill went nowhere fast.

Wind power did catch a break, though, catching the new breeze blowing across the South Dakota tax landscape: productivity tax. HB 1320 changes the tax system for wind farms so that instead of paying taxes based on land value, wind farms pay taxes based on power-generating capacity and gross receipts. That's one small step for wind power, one giant leap toward income tax.

Farmers get an even more giant leap away from property tax and toward income tax with HB 1005. Starting July 1, 2009, farmers will pay taxes based on "agricultural income value on a per acre basis." The professors at SDSU have 15 months to come up with their magic statewide productivity formula (I wonder if I'll have to pay $350 to get a copy of that study).

In the "Anything for a Buck" category:

SB 174 railroads individual property rights, making it easier for railroad companies to take your land for their profit.

Sen. Kloucek's SB 138 would have required proof of financial responsibility from TransCanada and other oil companies seeking to run pipelines through the state, kind of like we citizens have to do when we drive our cars to the store for milk. Mostly killed in committee, smoked out, really killed on the Senate floor.

Sen. Nesselhuf's SB 196 would have imposed clear and tough regulations on oil refineries, like the proposed Hyperion project at Elk Point. It got hoghoused down a couple of times, until there was nothing left but a statement that South Dakota reserves the right to impose environmental regulations of its own more stringent than federal standards, as it sees necessary to protect its natural resources. It passed the Senate, but even that imposition of local control and responsibility on the oil industry was too much for the House Ag and Natural Resources Committee (funny, the committee's name doesn't include "Oil"), where everyone but Rep. Dave Gassman (D-8/Canova) voted to kill it and keep Big Oil free and happy. (You tried, Dave -- thanks!)

On open government:

We get a state Freedom of Information Act, sort of, with SB 186, which creates a formal process by which we can request state government documents when the folks in the office just won't be neighborly and go get them for us.

We also get a new state website where we can look up any and all state financial information, thanks to HB 1233. Expect Sibby, PP, and the rest of the SD Blogosphere to melt down that server in the first week.

In other news:

HB 1179 gives the State Fair another subsidy, this time of $768,004.

While the Legislature found money to keep Huron's tourist economy afloat, it could not find money to reverse the Governor's $2-million cuts to the Highway Patrol budget. SB 172 floundered and spawned some unpleasant Republican bickering (keep it up, kids -- you'll be sorry when Gerry Lange becomes House Majority Leader!).

HB 1124 was going to enhance education by establishing a wild new three-tiered teacher salary system, plus a statewide minimum teacher salary of $30,000. The bill had the state paying for the tier increases; where the minimum salary was going to come from (and how it would be enforced) was anyone's guess. The bill got hoghoused to read in its entirety as follows: "Section 1. Education in South Dakota is hereby enhanced." That's all. And in perhaps the dorkiest vote of the session, the House and Senate actually passed it.

The Legislature did manage to pass education funding in SB 187. Per student state aid is increased, with a requirement that school districts use the money to boost teacher pay and benefits. HB 1087 managed to find $3 million more for education by cancelling the planned third-year expansion of the Classroom Connections (laptops in HS classrooms) program to 20 more schools (what could be more fun than watching the Legislature unite to increase education funding specifically by cutting one of the Governor's pet programs?).

HB 1076 was going to shift Internet costs from the state to the schools and keep more money in Pierre for the promulgation of further foolishness by the State Department of Education. It got hoghoused last Wednesday into a bill dealing with consolidation, but the House let it die. (So as I understand it, last year's much touted consolidation mandate still has no teeth.)

HB 1291 would have added dyslexia to the list of problems officially eligible for special education services in South Dakota. This bill seemed perfectly innocuous, until a friend of mine noted that it might actually have ended up denying kids services they can already get under federal rules. The House passed it, but the Senate Education Committee killed it.

HB 1261 was a snarky swipe by legislators at the Board of Regents, which had asked for legislation banning guns on campus and ended up with a bill banning the BoR from banning guns on campus. We had a brief flurry of Second Amendment bluster, and then the Senate imposed reason and killed it.

And vanity plates have lived to agitate and amuse for another day. SB 185 offered a comical list of potentially offensive messages to be banned from the official parts of your bumpers. SB 20 would have banned vanity plates altogether. Both measures died cold, lonely deaths in committee in January.

The Legislature continues to practice medicine without a license with SB 88, guaranteeing women seeking abortions the "opportunity" to see a sonogram of the fetus before the operation. We can at least take solace in the fact that otherwise, our legislators manageed to stay away from abortion politics this time around.

So, did we get our money's worth from our legislators this time around? I guess we'll get our chance to say so in November. But feel free to offer your say-so here! How'd the Legislature do in your book? What did they miss? What did they do too much of? And what did they do right? Your comments are welcome.

7 comments:

  1. This Session earned our Representatives and Senators a GPA of 1.0 out of 4.0.

    For a while, it looked like Sen. Knudson would qualify for extra credit with his endorsement of additional K-12 Funding at 3.8%, but in the end, he even voted against his own bill, so he gets a ZERO for backpeddling.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm glad too that the laptop dole out was scrapped. I've been looking for a new laptop for work, and I can find a decent one for much less than we are providing students at taxpayer expense. If this is what people want and kids really need, then put out bids and make it competitive school by school.

    And I listened to the consolidation debate in Pierre regarding Carthage and two districts near Iowa. They at least had sense to leave the two districts sending their kids to Iowa alone. And the Carthage debacle was caused evidently by tht school simply following the consolidation rules put in place the year before by the legislature; but this case would have been too expensive even though all involved districts were simply following the rules. So much for poorly written or thought out laws. Sen. Sutton did argue for a compromise so that Carthage and those schools weren't left out entirely, and it passed.

    Is fun to go listen to the legislature argue/debate in the final days of the session. I advise everyone to take an afternoon or two and do that.

    I think they got an F though for spending funds for a new athletic building at SDSU when there isn't enough money for more important items in the budget. But athletic rules and this just proves it again.

    Nonnie

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why does education funding always get pushed to the last day of the session when all of the legislators have had enough and are willing to compromise on anything to just get out and get home. Maybe if we have to lay off Highway Patrol Officers because of the budget cuts thay can get jobs at the State Fair Grounds. I'm sure with that budget cut the officers won't be receiving a raise this year. What percentage raise did the state employees receive? Why wouldn't the teachers and Highway Patrolmen get the same increase?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Teachers get raises every year. I don't! Sorry, but I'm tired of all the complaining about teacher salaries in this state. A lawyer working for the state receives $45,000 starting salary. That's for seven years of education, year-round working schedule. Teachers starting have four years of college and work 175 days a year with good benefits. True, a lawyer can make more at a firm maybe. Same thing for teachers; they can make more in a different occupation. It's about choices and what you want to do.

    But no one in SD makes huge wages. Readers can check with the SD labor department statistics if they don't believe me. Everyone wants to make more money, and everyone is free to move to make the bigger bucks.

    Sorry, Cory, I know you are a teacher and probably won't agree with me. But I just had to vent.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No problem, Anon -- venting is always allowed, whether you agree with me or not.

    You're right: there are lots of working people getting a worse deal than teachers. No argument there. But the problem is that our teachers are getting a worse deal than teachers across the border (any border, any direction). Say what you will about teachers' workloads, education, etc. But many teachers don't make their financial/employment decisions based on the fact that they make more per hour than ditch-diggers, secretaries, or some other profession in South Dakota. A lot will choose their place of employment based on the fact that for teaching, they can get paid more pretty much anywhere else than in South Dakota.

    Now sure, you can say "Good riddance!" and call those teachers turncoats for acting rationally according to market forces, but pretty soon those market forces will turn on you and leave you with a diminishing pool of talent to teach your kids. It all depends on whether you see teacher pay as an expense or an investment.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Without commenting on whether it is a good policy or not, the reason it looks like education funding is pushed to the last day is that the fight over ADDITIONAL funding is decided on the last days as funds are finally accounted for with the revenue estimates (for the revenue that is to come and the spending that is to be made 6 to 18 months in the furutre). It is the battle to do more than the statutory minimum that occurs late in the session. Just thought you ought to have it in perspective -- Lee Schoenbeck

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nonnie, I have to offer a rebuttal to your post about the SDSU Student Athlete Center.

    First of all, the only reason that the Legislature authorized building the center was because it was on state property. NO STATE MONEY is being authorized in it's construction; in fact the center is being built strictly with private donations. The department would like something bigger, but they'll expand when they have more donations... pretty fiscally sound, if you ask me.

    Senators like Brock Greenfield are under the impression that all SDSU is doing is pouring money into its athletic program. This is simply not true. First of all, the Board of Regents has prohibited the school from raising student fees or asking for state funds in order to aid the school in it's transition to Division One athletics. Anything that the school has done, from the new scoreboards to the new equestrian center north of campus, has been done with donations and corporate sponsorships and it has not cost the public ONE RED CENT!

    And if you think that all SDSU does is fund athletics, you really need to visit campus sometime, Nonnie. For starters, the school just broke ground on the "Innovation Campus" which will allow business to set up shop at SDSU in order to do research. There's also the Enterprise Institute (not affiliated with Captain Kirk) that offers support to people starting up businesses in South Dakota. Let's see... Oh, and there's a $45-million dollar addition to Shepard Hall (the Avera Health Sciences Building) that is going to be the most expensive building ever constructed at SDSU.

    You know, those projects aren't sexy, but they're there. And just because the football team gets a little more coverage in the press than the science department doesn't give Senator Greenfield, the Legislature or you, Nonnie, the right to jump to conclusions and make assumptions. And as Cory will verify, you know what happens when one assumes! LOL

    ReplyDelete

Comments are closed, as this portion of the Madville Times is in archive mode. You can join the discussion of current issues at MadvilleTimes.com.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.