LAIC: Earn Your Keep

Yesterday's (2006.07.26) Madison Daily Leader offers the headline "LAIC Wants More Money." Yes, our friends at the Lake Area Improvement Corporation think they need $30,000 more from the city to do more facilitating and strategizing and all the other tasks that marketers do. I think we'd get as much satisfaction and enjoyment from flushing 30,000 one-dollar bills down a toilet and watching them spin into oblivion.

However, knowing the LAIC will tell us that we must grow or die, and that the only way to grow is to market, I offer the following suggestion: Sure, the LAIC can have $30,000 more in next year's budget, but first, they have to prove that they have brought twice that much revenue into the city coffers in the last year. $30,000 from the city would be the product of $1.5 million in sales (taxed by the city at 2%). Of course, the LAIC shouldn't get every penny of increased revenue -- increased tax revenue is supposed to help us pave streets and fund the library, not simply keep churning out more banners and slogans for our town. 50% of any provable revenue increase is a more than reasonable commission. Thus, for every dollar more that LAIC wants in its budget, it should have to prove that its efforts (not luck, not good weather, not national economic trends, but LAIC's own marketing campaigns) have generated an additional $100 of economic activity in Madison. LAIC's $30,000 budget increase would only be justified if LAIC could show $3 million in increased local economic activity.

If the LAIC wants us to live by the mantra of marketing, the LAIC should also have to live by the rules of business and good government: you want more money, you show us results. Indexing LAIC's funding to its proven performance should have the same positive impact on productivity and efficiency that it does in the private enterprises LAIC is promoting.

Herseth Supports Gay Marriage Ban; Progressives Wonder Where to Turn

Democratic Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth was one of 34 Democrats to vote for House Joint Resolution 88, proposing a Constitutional amendment restricting marriage to unions between one man and one woman. The amendment failed the July 18 vote 236-187.

To express my disappointment with Representative Herseth's un-Democratic vote, I e-mailed her the following comments:

Dear Representative Herseth:

A couple weeks ago, a young woman named Cassie called me on behalf of the South Dakota Democratic Party to talk up your achievements in Congress and solicit money so you could continue to fight against the Republican majority. I asked the caller why I should support a Democrat who associates herself with the Blue Dog conservatives and talks and votes like a Republican on numerous issues. Poor Cassie, who apparently was a new trainee in the party office, said she didn't know about that.

If Cassie calls again, I will direct her attention to your vote on HJ Res 88, proposing a constitutional amendment relating to marriage. My wife and I are both registered Democrats, and we want to vote for legislators who will fight for a truly progressive agenda. How can we do that when you vote like a Republican? Why not take a stand on this unnecessary, discriminatory, and dangerous amendment and make the effort to persuade South Dakotans that issues like gay marriage have nothing to do real family values like supporting working parents, teaching kids, and providing affordable health care for all ages? You don't have to pander to the yahoos of the religious right who are trying to co-opt Christianity as well as American politics. Make a stand; be the progressive thinker that South Dakota needs (and that progressives like us are aching to hear speaking for us in the public arena).

With sincere longing for a real Democrat....

I'll let you know if she responds....

New Teacher Academy Ignores the Obvious

Friday's (2006.06.02, p.1) Madison Daily Leader leads with a story about next week's New Teacher Academy taking place at Dakota State University. The purpose of the three-day event: to keep new teachers in the profession. State Secretary of Education cites the well-known (in education circles) statistic that nationwide, 50% of teachers leave the profession within five years.

O.K., hold it right there. Pop quiz: Imagine you are the Secretary of Education and you wanted to address new-teacher retention. Which of the following do you think would persuade more teachers to remain in the profession?

(A) Celebrate the accomplishments of new teachers;
(B) Reflect on new teachers' progress and influence on student achievement;
(C) Examine core propositions of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards;
(D) Develop professional relationships to achieve common educational goals;
(E) Participate in activities that demonstrate a commitment to the teaching profession;
(F) Receive more pay.

If you answered (F), you aren't thinking like a true education administrator. Such individuals don't get to their positions of power and influence with straight talk and common sense. They get there by proposing and lauding make-work mumbo-jumbo like options (A)-(E), which come straight from the Department of Education's description of the New Teacher Academy.

This story doesn't completely ignore the issue of teacher pay: Tom Hawley, dean of DSU's College of Education, notes (in column 5 of a six-column article) that new teachers "can go into the private sector and make a larger salary." Hawley says that through the New Teacher Academy, the state wants to be "proactive and try to keep the best and brightest teachers in the classrooms in South Dakota."

Actually, it sounds like the state is simply trying to find ways to make itself look good by throwing federal grant money down another hole. If you want to keep new teachers on the job, don't cut into their vacation with more mindless academic activities (the same sorts of tedious, content-free classes we already have to sit through to meet our overly burdensome and talent-discouraging certification requirements). Say "Good job, here's a check. Want to stick around for another year?" Handing out checks wouldn't look as good on an education administrator's resume as a fancy seminar, but it would achieve the goal of teacher retention a lot more directly and efficiently.

As Expected, Slogan Underwhelms

Friday's (2006.06.02) Madison Daily Leader reports that the employees at CommissionSoup have come up with a new slogan for Madison: we may replace "In Touch with the World" with (brace yourself) "Discover the Unexpected."

I wish I could get paid for sitting around and thinking up slogans. Apparently, I wouldn't have to think of anything terribly creative or even representative of the town, product, or service I'm trying to promote.

This new slogan fails in two ways. First, it fails in terms of content. "Discover the Unexpected" -- what unexpectedness does Madison offer? How many people have driven to Madison and exclaimed, "Wow, I never expected to find that in Madison?" I love my town, but I will admit that it is a typical small prairie town: farm and manufacturing jobs; some small shops on main street struggling to compete with the big stores out on the highway and in Sioux Falls; lakes with bullhead, walleye, and the wily carp; and a majority of high school graduates who can't wait to get out of town for their college education and better job opportunities elsewhere.

Even if a visitor with an eye less accustomed to Madison's native wonders than my own were to visit and find something unexpected, the slogan still fails on a second level, as a unique and competitive identifier of our fair city. The slogan fails to set us apart from the other communities with whom we are competing for tourism dollars and economic development.

Test the slogan this way: could we slap that slogan on any other town and still have it make sense? "Discover the Unexpected... in Brookings!" "...in Mitchell!" "...in Ramona!" The slogan makes as much sense applied to any other town as it does to Madison. Any town could claim to have unexpected treasures. Potential visitors comparing slogans to determine their next family vacation or major business investment would learn nothing about Madison from "Discover the Unexpected."

Compare the proposed slogan with another slogan, one enjoying perhaps the greatest top-of-mind awareness of any current metropolitan tagline: "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas." Not only does the slogan mention the city by name (by somewhat catchy nickname), but it captures a defining aspect of the city's character, something that no other city could legitimately claim. ("What happens in New York stays in New York?" Heck no -- New Yorkers think their city is the center of the universe and want everyone to know what happens there.)

By this standard, even our current slogan, "In Touch with the World," sells the city better than "Discover the Unexpected." "In Touch with the World" fits with our local university's mission and our technological knowledge base. It promises businesses and new residents something specific and useful: connection with the broader economy and culture. "Discover the Unexpected" leaves people wondering whether the slogan is promising unexpected economic opportunity, simple distracting oddities for tourists, or maybe just a fly in your soup at Nicky's.

If Madison really wants to succeed in the arena of metro-slogans, it should make an effort to compose a slogan that reflects specific competitive advantages of this community over its neighbors. Of course, if Madison really wants to succeed in general, it should stop wasting time and money on marketing and focus on real economic improvements.

Correction Made, Question Remains

In response to "Local Economy Needs More Market, Not Marketing", I received the following e-mail from Commissioner Karen Lembcke:

Corey,
I appreciate your opinion as to the letter to the editor. However when you are quoting people be sure you are getting the right people and comments. The commission is in favor of the marketing campaigne, and I do appreciate your interest. However I need to correct your statement, I did not make the comment about the city becoming stagnant, that would have been Mechelle Nordberg, perhaps you should have read Thursday nights paper, front page, this would let you know who said what.

Karen Lembcke
Prostrollo Auto Mall

Indeed, in my original post, I misattributed a quote by Commissioner Nordberg to Commissioner Lembcke. Commission Lembcke was quoted right before Commissioner Nordberg, and I was reading too quickly while working on my response to the article. I immediately edited the online version, although alas, the Madison Daily Leader published my essay right away in Friday's paper, so the damage has already been done. Following is the response I e-mailed to Commissioner Lembcke:

Dear Karen,

Oops! Thanks for the correction. I am sorry I got the wrong name on the quote. You rightly take me to task, just as I would any of my students who made a similar mistake. I will edit the online version of the text to properly cite Commissioner Nordberg's quote.

So, given that correction, I'm still curious why the city puts so much emphasis on creating an image. Rereading the article (yes, I did read the entire article; I just misread the tag on the quote when working on my response), I find your actual quote telling. "It seems like a lot of money, but we're going to have to find it if we want Madison to grow and prosper." Indeed, I'm all for growth and prosperity (within the framework of a reasonable plan, since bigger isn't inherently better), but I wonder, when we do find money, wouldn't we get a better return on those dollars first fixing our potholes, funding the bike trail, and making other real improvements to our infrastructure?

Keep looking for solutions! I'd run in the next election and come help, but for now, teaching is my calling to civil service. I'll be sure to use my own essay and your correction as an in-class example of how even English teachers need to check and double-check their sources.

Sincerely,
Cory Allen Heidelberger

Local Economy Needs More Market, not Marketing

Today's Madison Daily Leader (05.11.2006) reports that the City of Madison will throw $500,000 over the next five years into marketing our fair city. Those tax dollars will be transferred to the Lake Area Improvement Corporation, which has big plans to "market Madison through advertising on radio, TV, newspapers and magazines and create new banners, billboards, signs and possibly a new logo." Says LAIC Executive Director Dwaine Chapel, "We're already looking at ads in tourism magazines."

City Commissioner Mechelle Nordberg sounds particularly sanguine about the project. Noting that other communities are ramping up their marketing efforts, she says, "Unless we want to just sit here and be stagnant, we have to compete with those communities as well."

I am underwhelmed at Madison's efforts to make itself South Dakota's next "City on the Go." Remember that slogan? Watertown used that silly line to promote itself a few years ago on billboards and in TV ads. I remember the line only because my wife and I gleefully mocked the absurd tone of Watertown's ads and slogan. "City on the Go? Where's it going? Someone better catch it before it gets too far. Oh, wait, it's Watertown -- let it go!"

Luverne, Minnesota, is running similar ads for our amusement on local TV. As much as we revel in identifying the weak production elements of this montage of various Luverne landmarks on Luverne's apparently sleepy streets, we have yet to see anything in Luverne's marketing campaign that makes us want to leap off the couch, pull up stakes, and move to Luverne (or even go have dinner there).

Has the Lake Area Improvement Corporation seen these ads? Does LAIC think it has some magic formula that will make Madison's marketing campaign chuckle-proof? More importantly, does LAIC have any data that suggests these ads have contributed to any economic growth in these towns? Commissioner Nordberg's comment suggests the only successful marketing going on here is the campaign to market marketing: get a few towns to hire some image consultants and buy a few cheesy billboards and TV ads, and all the other towns will feel like they have to do the same to keep up.

If Madison needs to keep up with the surrounding burgs in anything, it's not marketing. I suspect that any economic growth Watertown has enjoyed in the last ten years has not come from impressionable consumers seeing the ads, crying "City on the Go?! That's the place for us!" and racing up I-29 to shop at the Watertown Mall. Economic growth comes from entrepreneurs taking risks, starting businesses, creating jobs, and providing goods and services that people want. When a town has strong businesses, their goods and services will draw customers by their own merits. Prostrollo's is an excellent example: Prostrollo's doesn't draw people to Madison by saying, "Look how pretty Main Street is"; Prostrollo's draws people by shouting "We've got the cars you want!"

Likewise, towns draw new residents not by packaging themselves in a slick media campaign, but by offering honest and varied opportunities. When my ex-students finish college and look for towns in which to work and raise their families, they look at the job listings, not the clever slogan on the sign outside town.

If the City Commission and LAIC are serious about drawing new businesses and residents, they should direct their money toward something much more lasting and useful than advertising. What could we do with $500,000?

• Create a small business development fund. Offer grants for job creation: any small business, existing or new, could get $5000 for every job it creates. Imagine the boon to the community if that $500,000 fund led to the creation of 100 new jobs in Madison. (Remember, this doesn't apply if Wal-Mart comes to town, since they'll put everyone at Jubilee, Stan's, and Pamida out of work. We want new small businesses that add to the diversity of goods, services, and jobs in Madison.)
• Create a new-resident home loan benefit. When a new resident moves to Madison and buys or builds a house, LAIC pays the closing costs or offers to pay $5000 toward the down payment. Such money would promote genuine long-term investment in Madison.
• Create a small-business advertising fund. If we just can't get away from the idea that advertising will make Madison a boom town, then we could at least give the money to small businesses to advertise their goods and services to a wider market. Give the money to our local entrepreneurs and let them dream up their own ad campaigns. Maria's new Mexican market at Second and Egan is a great addition to the community; an advertising grant could help Maria's buy a big sign to catch drivers' attention on the highway or some radio and TV spots to draw creative cooks from around the area.

If Madison really is a land of opportunity, its businesses can promote themselves. If the City Commission insists on throwing money into the development effort, it can do so in more fruitful ways than trying to brand our city as just another "City on the Go." Savvy consumers chuckle at cheesy marketing campaigns; they spend their money on goods and services of real value. The occasional RV tourist may make a brief detour on the basis of a glossy ad; serious entrepreneurs and investors work and live in communities that create and support healthy, diverse local economies.

Basketball Parents Display March Madness

As western South Dakota digs out from under its biggest snowstorm of the season thus far (now that it's spring, it only seems reasonable to expect bigger snowstorms), I would like to note a travel alert issued by the state Department of Public Safety over the weekend. With the snowstorm bearing down on Rapid City, site of the State AA Boys Basketball Tournament, the Department of Public Safety paid special attention to all the teenage fans traveling to and from the event. The agency urged parents whose children had driven to Rapid City for the tournament to contact their kids and tell them to stay put until the storm had blown over and the roads were clear.

Now understand that I appreciate such concern from our state government for the safety of our youth. But wait a minute: who are these parents who let their kids drive unchaperoned across the state with a big blizzard on the way? Wouldn't a better travel alert have been in order before the tournament, telling parents that letting their kids drive alone 300+ miles into a winter storm watch area (not to mention to a state tournament for 2-3 days without any adult supervision) is a bad idea?

Such a travel alert tells a lot about South Dakota culture. Every year kids at Montrose, the school I teach at, take off for the State B tournaments whether Montrose is playing in them or not (we made the State 9B football tournament last season for the first time since the 1980s). They go not to watch the games but to drink and trash hotel rooms. And parents seem perfectly accepting of behavior. Our school board even schedules the Fridays of the state basketball and football tournaments as days off to facilitate our students' participation in this parentally approved, state-sponsored bacchanalia.

As far as I know, all the kids got home o.k., and the Rapid City economy turned a nice profit on hotels, restaurants, and various consumables. Thank goodness we have the state to remind parents to call their kids with parental advice but not get in the way of a good time.

Abortion Ban? Why Not Free Delivery?

Yesterday Governor Mike Rounds signed South Dakota's abortion ban into law, bringing great joy to all those spoiling for a Supreme Court fight. The law will also bring happiness to those activists eager for the chance to stand on busy street corners and shout their mindless chant "Live baby good, dead baby bad." (Reminds me of the sheep bleating "Four legs good! Two legs bad!" to disrupt the political speeches in Animal Farm.)

Now this abortion ban won't amount to much. It will make various self-righteous evangelicals feel good about their commitment to the moral cause. When the law ges struck down by the Supreme Court, the defeat will reinforce the illusory sense of oppression and martyrhood that evangelicals apparently find so vital to their sense of identity. However, the ban will not save a single baby. Kate Looby of South Dakota Planned Parenthood hass her lawsuit against the ban in her back pocket, and she will file it well before July 1 to block the law from coming into effect. Even if the law somehow does pass Constitutional muster (and South Dakota's lawmakers, along with the anonymous donors kicking in the money to help defray the costs of the impending court battle), it will only drive abortions out of the state. The estimated 800 women who have abortions in South Dakota each year already have to drive all the way to either Sioux Falls or Rapid City for the procedure; it's not a big step for them to drive to the next closest abortion clinic in Minnesota or North Dakota. (Where a young woman out in Faith will have to drive, I hate to think -- Bismarck? Cheyenne? Sheridan? Billings?)

But while we wait for the next shoe (the lawsuit) to drop, it occurs to me that South Dakota could go for the one-two punch in terms of making a stand for live babies. South Dakota could demonstrate its genuine commitment to the value of life by offering free delivery of every baby born in South Dakota. If babies really are the most precious thing in the world, shouldn't we as a state put our money where our mouth is? Consider that somewhere out there some self-righteous Bible-thumper is willing to put up a million dollars to help defend the abortion ban in court. (Funny how people following the word of Jesus, the poor itinerant carpenter, manage to find the time to get so rich.) Instead of throwing that one million dollars at the handful of lawyers who will profit from this fight, the anonymous donor could donate that one million dollars to Sioux Valley Hospital to cover the costs of the next 300 deliveries. That would allow 300 families to save over $3000 each, money they could apply toward their pre-natal and post-natal care; toward buying warm clothes, sturdy car seats, and child gates; and toward generally increasing the health, safety, and comfort of their new child. That step alone would do more for the welfare of real live babies in South Dakota than the abortion ban ever will.

Besides, in pure economic terms, "Free Delivery" would more than make up for the business South Dakota will lose from abortion seekers heading to Minnesota or Wyoming for the procedure. Young parents would flock across the border to Sioux Falls, Yankton, Rapid City, and Aberdeen to have their babies delivered for free. They'd quite likely come here then for their pre- and post-natal care (a boost for the economy). While they were here, the new parents would surely pick up some groceries and lots of baby items (another boost for the economy). Some young parents might be so impressed with the Free Delivery policy and the socially enlightened state government that would pass it that they would choose to relocate here (and the young-parent demographic is exactly the one we need to permanently boost our economy).

Free Delivery would do much more to help real live babies than the abortion ban ever will. But the Christian Right isn't interested in real solvency. They're interested in making statements that make themselves feel good, regardless of the real-world impacts. They don't want to step out of their comfort zone and enter into a genuine Christian relationship of community with the women and poor children who really need help to make it into and through the world.

Laptops -- Absolutely! Teacher Pay -- Well, I Suppose...

Now that Christmas vacation gives me a break from running debate tournaments and early-morning one-act play rehearsals, I have time to comment on Governor Rounds's new education plan. Our fair governor seems to think that the way to improve South Dakota education is to provide laptops to every high school student in the state. Governor Rounds says, "The reality is that if you want to provide a good education, a laptop is going to be part of it."
Of course, while the governor views laptops as essential to education, he's willing to direct the state to fund just $13 million of the projected $39 million required for the statewide laptop outfit.

Of course, the governor's commitment to technology in the classroom (and now in backpacks, backseats, and wherever else the kids will forget those computers) still appears to outweigh his commitment to funding another arguably essential component of education -- teachers. The Argus points out that Governor Rounds has also proposed $3.5 million for a school efficiencies program to boost teacher pay. It works like this: the state would match funds that schools can save by cutting other programs if those funds are then directed toward teacher pay. So if schools find other ways to tighten their budgets -- cutting arts programs, for instance, or eliminating extracurricular opportunities or textbook purchases -- the state will send some money to increase teacher salaries. Total local outlays would remain the same; statewide, education funding would increase by at most the $3.5 dollars, less than a tenth of what the entire laptop program would cost the state and the local districts.

Our governor appears to have made his classroom priorities clear. He believes laptops are ten times more valuable than making it easier for teachers to afford to remain in their chosen profession.

To understand the governor's mistaken priorities, let's run some back-of-the-envelope projections for Montrose High School, my place of employment. We need 77 student laptops. To keep up, the teachers will likely need laptops as well. Let's suppose we strike a reasonably good deal and get decent laptops for $500 a pop (the Aberdeen American News reports that the governor expects costs of "less than $1,000 apiece for computers with three-year leases, software and warranties"). 77 student laptops plus 15 staff laptops = 92 computers @$500 = $46,000. Let's be optimistic and assume that rounding up to an even $50,000 covers the costs of setting up the software, networking, and security for the new machines. $50,000 -- that's equal to the salary of two new teachers... or a raise of $2500 for every teacher. Now, consider that the governor's money is one-time money, so once Montrose gets its laptops, Montrose is on its own for maintenance and replacement costs. A laptop network that size will require at least one dedicated computer support person, who likely will demand a salary greater than that of any teacher in the building. Let's suppose the computer tech person gives us a break and works for $40,000 a year. Suppose we need to replace just 1 out of 20 machines each year -- that's 5 new laptops, another $2500. The school's costs each year for mere maintenance and replacement will be greater than their initial buy-in with the assistance of the state's matching funds. We've already invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in computers, and we wonder why school budgets are getting tighter every year.

On the merits of laptops in the classroom, see Steve Hemmingsen's December 12 comments. I am also pleased to direct you to comments from some South Dakota lawmakers who think laptops might not warrant such a prominent place in our list of education priorities. Senator Jerry Apa of Lead, a Republican like Governor Rounds, questions the governor's focus on technology:

"Since when did laptops become an entitlement?" Sen. Jerry Apa, R-Lead, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, asked. "If the schools are in trouble now financially, how are they going to come up with their match? How are the smaller school districts going to afford a support person? What about children whose parents can afford the Internet and those who can't? What are we going to do - subsidize the Internet? It's an interesting offer, but the practicality of it is just not there," Apa said.

I don't know if we can count on the Legislature to increase teacher pay, but let's hope comments like Apa's indicate that the Legislature will at least keep us from sinking our money into another technological boondoggle that will benefit Gateway more than the students of this state.

Opt-Out Compromise: Luxury Property Tax?

Let us suppose that the Madison Central school board lacks the political will to advocate at the state level for an income tax. This summer Superintendent Frank Palleria said as much to me, expressing the oft-cited line that the income tax is a good idea but that South Dakotans will never vote for one. (Again, if everyone says that, who's left to voteagainst it?) Comments from board member Mark Hawkes in the Tuesday Madison Daily Leader indicate that attitude persists: he says that the board does not think the legislature will do anything to change the funding formula to help schools in the coming session, and he expresses no initiative to go to Pierre and push for change. The board is stuck in the same old rut.

If we must have a property tax increase, perhaps the board could still be a bit creative about it. Perhaps the board could still find a way to increase the district's revenue without hitting the lower-income people of this community. There are obviously people in the community who can afford higher taxes: just take a look at the huge houses going up around Lake Madison. Perhaps the board could vote for a property tax increase that would target just those big builders.

Specifically, let's impose a "luxury property tax." We could pick an arbitrary value, say $250,000. Every property valued below that amount would see its property tax levy remain the same. However, we would impose a higher levy for every thousand dollars above that rate. Right now, the residential property tax levy is $14.77 per $1000 value. We could tax the first $250,000 of a house's value at that rate. Above that value, we could levy $24.77 per $1000.

So take a $400,000 house. On the first $250,000 of that value, the owner would pay $14.77x250 = $3692.50. On the remaining $150,000 of the house's value, the owner would pay $24.77x150 = $3715.50. The total assessment: $7408.

My numbers are not set in stone. We can certainly debate just what value constitutes a reasonable starting point for "luxury property" and just how much to increase the levy for those higher values. Perhaps instead of a dollar figure, we could use residence status: perhaps we apply the tax only to second homes and vacation homes and exempt primary residences. Perhaps we could apply the tax strictly to new construction, thus encouraging people to renovate and preventing urban sprawl.

Whatever scheme we would choose, a "luxury property tax" would buffer people with older, smaller homes, like retirees who don't have the energy or time to clean a giant house or lower-income workers who simply can't afford new, sprawling digs, from the increased tax burden the school district wants to impose. The people who can spring for an extra 1000 square feet of living space can likely spring for increased property tax as well. Such a luxury property tax rate still isn't the ideal -- ultimately, we should move toward an income tax that most directly addresses the issue of taxing people according to their ability to pay. But a luxury property tax would provide at least a little breathing room for lower-income property holders until we develop the political will to completely reform the state tax system.

Education Yes, Property Tax No

The Madison Central school board is tooting the opt-out horn again. Three years ago, after losing two opt-out efforts at the public ballot box, the school district engaged in some serious budget cutting. However, with enrollment dropping due to unavoidable demographic factors -- we've passed the baby boomlet, and Madison's population, while stable, is skewing older -- the school will continue to receive less money under the state aid formula. Therefore, just to maintain salaries and programs at current levels, board president Kelly Johnson says the board may need to opt out of the state property tax freeze.

Opt-outs are a tricky issue for me. As a teacher, my livelihood depends on sufficient public funding for education, and determining what is "sufficient" is difficult enough in itself. But whatever constitutes "sufficient" funding, we can't get that funding fairly under South Dakota's current system of taxation. South Dakota, with no personal or corporate income tax, relies primarily on sales and property tax (along with lots of federal welfare) to fund its government functions. Neither tax is based on an individual's ability to pay. The property tax hinders the ability of lower-income workers, retirees, and farmers to obtain and hold onto their property. Property tax also penalizes people for having richer neighbors: if I am content with my small house and limited income, but a wealthy businessman builds a sprawling mansion next door, his construction drives up my property value and tax bill, which forces me to work more hours just to hold on to what I have. I may be able to enjoy increased property balue by selling or borrowing against my property, but if I am interested simply in holding onto and enjoying my land and living within my current means, I'm out of luck.

Three years ago, I voted against both of Madison Central's opt-outs. I participated actively in the campaign against the first one, circulating petitions to put the opt-out to a public vote. I will oppose and will urge my fellow citizens to oppose any future opt-out as well. I love education. I want to see our school sufficiently funded to provide the kids as many educational opportunities as we can manage. I want to see Madison's debate team provided with enough funding for proper coaching and travel to all the tournaments during the debate season. But I will not accept the argument that I have to support these valuable programs by approving an increase in an unjust tax system. It's like saying I have to approve the repair of a major highway by using indentured servants, or that I should support winning debate rounds by cheating. We cannot do the right thing by doing the wrong thing. If Madison voters and others across the state want more funding for their schools, they need to find the political will to fight for a more just tax system.

Conservation, not Production: Letter to SD Congressional Delegation

In the news this week: the "Gasoline for America's Security" Act, passed by the House Republicans 212-210. Evidently, a majority of Republicans believe that giving oil companies money to build oil refineries will ease our energy crunch. They ignore the fact that oil refinery profits have doubled in the past year and that the oil companies could thus afford new construction on their own, if they really wanted to increase supply.

Fortunately, South Dakota's lone representative in the House, Democratic Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth, voted with the rest of the Democrats on this one. Perhaps now she will pursue the proposal outlined below, which I e-mailed to her (as well as to our esteemed Senators Johnson and Thune) this morning:

Dear Representative Herseth:

Outraged by the Republicans' "Gasoline for America's Security" Act, I've decided to propose to you a plan for real energy independence. If energy independence is really vital for America's security, then we should approach the problem in the same way we approach wars. When we fought World War II, we ordered the big auto companies to retool and start cranking out tanks and airplanes. Why don't we declare war on energy dependence and order Ford and GM to build hybrids for the federal government?

I'm not suggesting nationalizing the auto industry or passing a bunch of regulations. I'm suggesting a very simple business deal: the federal government offers Ford, GM, and any other willing automaker a giant contract: build enough hybrid, E-85, and/or biodiesel vehicles to replace the entire federal fleet of vehicles by January 1, 2007. The Postal Service alone has 200,000 vehicles*, many of which could easily be replaced with hybrid vehicles, which are perfect for the sort of urban stop-and-go driving that most postal vehicles do. The federal government could lead the way with its revamped alternative-fuel fleet in reducing energy consumption, and the big automakers, having retooled to meet government demand, would seek to maximize their profit by cranking out more such vehicles for the private consumer market.

*I consulted Stacy C. Davis and Susan W. Diegel, US Department of Energy, /Transportation Energy Data Book, /Edition 24,/ /Chapter 7, "Fleet Vehicles and Characteristics," http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb24/Edition24_Chapter07.pdf for my numbers on the size of the federal vehicle fleet.