2009

Statement of the day; The definition of Populism

My favorite political writer, Jim Hightower, nails it in his latest newsletter when describing ‘REAL’ populists over ‘WANNABE’ populists like RUSH, DOBBS and Gingrich. In fact, cartoonist, Matt Wuerker does a toon in the lastest issue which he calls DOBBS a WASPulist. LMAO. I just call him a fucking racist. Anyway the statement;

First of all, populism is not a style, nor is it a synonym for “popular outrage.” It is a historically grounded political doctrine (and movement) that supports ordinary folks in their ongoing democratic fight against the moneyed

elites.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

Props to SculptureYawn for reducing taxdollar contributions this year

.!.

dscn1265

Look mom, I grabbed some granite countertop scraps, stacked them on top of each other and presto – I’m a fricking artist!

Intermission ipod

But you won’t see SculptureYawn mention public funding in their brochure. After a press release appeared on the Gargoyle Leader’s website last month saying SW doesn’t take public money, I have been prodding the Gargoyle to do a story about the organization’s funding. I have been doing some digging myself to.

According to their brochure the city now purchases the award sculptures through a grant from the Sheldon F. Reese Foundation a locally based charity organization. The SF Area Community Foundation and the SD Arts council also donated to SW (both receive partial tax dollars for their annual budget). What was missing from the brochure was how much, or that the city even gives a penny to SW.

Then I stumbled upon this. Buried under the Planning Services CIP budget were a couple of line items that I found interesting;

Planning & Building Services

113025 SCULPTURE WALK   Budget:  15,000 Expensed: 15,000

Not sure what the money is spent on specifically (insurance?), but it is pretty obvious that city spent $15,000 this year on SW (which is down about $10,000 from last year).

Now while some of you may know, I am all for public art, but think it should be paid for through private donations. I think tax dollars spent on the arts should go 100% into education. Since public art is objective, I don’t think it is a wise use of tax dollars. That being said, I think a majority of Sioux Falls residents probably disagree with me, and don’t have a problem with the city spending $15,000 on SW this year, I just find it curious that SW wouldn’t mention it in a brochure that is dedicated to thanking their sponsors. As a taxpayer, it would have been nice to be recognized.

CITY FINANCIAL NEWS; SIOUX FALLS

The nerd in me likes combing over city reports in search for tidbits. I found a couple today in last month’s financial report and a curious abatement request in the city council agenda.

First with the financial report, it seems we were down from last year in April, but still up for the year, barely. I suspect though we will come out ahead by year’s end. But I also think that the recession has hit Sioux Falls, and will still be affecting us next year at this time. The one thing I have noticed about South Dakota is the recession recovery takes longer, because of our modest lifestyles and lack of middleclass wealth. It will be interesting to watch the budget hearings for 2010.

 

April                       2009                       2008

Sales/Use Tax    2,810,791             2,848,615

CIP TAX               2,586,144             2,620,749

ENT. Tax             316,418                 329,390

Lodging Tax        46,289                   30,731

Total YTD

Sales/Use Tax    12,936,792           12,773,818

CIP TAX                11,902,105           11,752,056

ENT. Tax              1,463,368             1,382,215

Lodging Tax        148,798                  126,698

In the city council agenda, I found and interesting property tax abatement request;

3.

Lifelight Communications Inc., 2601 S. Western Avenue, for 2008 property taxes in the amount of $8,479.51. Lifelight was granted exempt status in 2009 and they are now requesting abatement for the 362 days owned in 2008.

 

While I don’t have a problem with non-profits getting tax exempt status to get a relief in taxes, I find it curious that Lifelight would buy property without having the status setup first to get this tax relief. I’m kind of on the fence about the abatement, since it isn’t very much, but will be curious what LifeLight’s argument will be at the meeting. I guess if I was establishing a non-profit, I would get my status in check before buying property, but hey, what do I know, I’m just a heathen.