Here we go, a bunch of rich doctors wanting to make sure their bloated payments from Medicare continue have successfully been able to petition the public into increasing the most regressive tax (sales taxes);
Secretary of State Jason Gant today announced that the petitions submitted for an initiated measure to increase South Dakota’s sales tax have passed the certification process, and the issue will be placed on the November 2012 general election ballot.
Doesn’t anyone find it a bit ironic that we would raise taxes on a basic need like food to pay for healthcare and education? If someone can’t afford food, what good is healthcare and education?
This is sad for a number of reasons, but I have two that the public needs to keep in mind;
Initiated Measure 15 would increase the sales tax from 4 percent to 5 percent, with Medicaid providers and K-12 schools sharing about $180 million in new annual revenue.
This only for the first year. After that the legislature can change this formula on the drop of a hat. Does anyone recall the promise of video lottery contributing to education? I’m sorry, call me a cynic bastard, but I know how Pierre works, they see money being given to social programs, they take that money away and funnel it into tax breaks and contracts for their rich and connected buddies, and it is all legal, and I am not even being sarcastic.
The other issue I have with the increase is that money for education already exists. 1) We need to stop giving tax breaks to foreign oil companies because they ‘promise’ to throw us a bone 2) The investment fund, which has $800 million sitting in it could make up for the shortfall, and we would not even have to tap the principal. Right now the interest from that fund goes into the general fund, we could redirect it into education and medicare.
Let’s admit it, our healthcare system is broken. I was having drinks with a friend last night who told me an interesting story about an outpatient procedure his kid had to have. After he received his bill he noticed the surgeon’s fee was about 25% of the bill, but he could not figure out what the other 75% was. So he asked them to provide an itemized invoice. They could not produce it, so he told him he would pay half or see them in court. They accepted his offer, and still never provided the itemized invoice.
Make no mistake, this isn’t about education, this about making sure our bloated healthcare system continues to get funded. I also suspect some Republican lawmakers salivating at the prospect of scooping up this money in the following year.
For once I hope South Dakotans see past this ruse.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqHP8hYAmsE[/youtube]
Even if the legislature leaves this extra tax alone and does allow it to be split evenly between Medicare and education, there is nothing stating they can’t manipulate the general fund to allocate less funds to either of those two areas.
Rest assured, if you add to the pot, the legislature will find a way to control it regardless of anyones good intentions. You aren’t a cynic l3wis… you have simply been paying attention to history, and history has shown us that if you give the legislature more tax revenue they will find a way to spend it however they choose.
Not to mention that anytime we add a new tax, fee, or surcharge it is next to impossible to have it removed later. Does anyone think if the economy turns around and sales tax revenue increases 30% that the legislature would vote to eliminate the extra 1% sales tax? Get real.
Let’s start calling it what it is A Penny For T. Denny. Republicans aren’t the ones behind it.
I’m sure the Republicans are not behind it, because I have heard there is a lot of support from the Democratic side. But there are alot of ‘Liberals’ that are infuriated about it because of the increase on food taxes. Ellis said it right, the healthcare industry in SD is going to throw hundreds of thousands of dollars at this and there will be virtually no opposition. The elderly will line up to vote for this because of Medicare. A year will go by, and the legislature will go in and start taking apart the tax piece by piece. I often tell people I normally VOTE NO on most referendums and initiatives brought forth in our state, though I did vote for the smoking ban. If government wants more from you, that means government is being managed poorly. He have a rainy day fund that they refuse to touch. The healthcare industry needs to lobby legislatures for that money instead nickel and diming us.
Wasn’t a large portion of the revenue from video lottery supposed to go towards education………??
Yup. My point exactly.
Costner – since this would be the result of an initiated measure and not regular legislation, the legislature CANNOT repeal it. They would not have the legal authority to do so. This very phenomena (the irrepealability of initiated measures) is what has gotten Cailfornia in the mess its in. Thing is – their mess was created by the OPPOSITE sort of initated measure – one which LIMITS the anmount of taxes the state can collect – for ANY purpose.
Could they remove other funding for medicaid and education and let just this penny pay for them – sure. But this 1% would guarantee that education and medicaid are funded – even if NOTHING else is.
I signed the petition to get this on the ballot, but that wss my only intent at the time. To get it on the ballot. I’m not sure yet if a legislative measure that removes all tax on food and home-utilities or some such thing, woulod affect this 1%. I will make up my mind how to vote on it once I find out of that could be done. (Note – COULD be – not WILL be.)
Was the Video lottery law a legislative action – referred, or was it an initaited measure from outside the legislature? That is the critial element in whether or not the legislature has had the ability to mess with the spending of earnings from that endeavor; As it would be with this one.
And here’s the answer:
“In 1987, legislators authorized the creation of the South Dakota Lottery,…..”
Sooo, since the legislature was the source of the video lottery laws,that means the legislature can chage it/them. With this law, since the legislature IS NOT the originating source of the 1-cent law, the legislature cannot change it.
Since the legislature can change the video lottery law(s), that means they can cahnge the way the receipts are spent.
Since the legislature would NOT be able to change the one-cent law, that means they CANNOT change how it’s spent. The only way it could be changed is through ANOTHER initiated measure. One that is done throiugh the same process as the original law Voter petitions and a ballot vote. Period – no other way.
http://lottery.sd.gov/about/
Ruf – While you make some great points, as usual, I still am of the belief that state government, CAN, and, WILL manipulate the law anyway they see fit.
Don’t you think that there was some powerful forces involved with the AG having a zipper lip over whether or not the City of SF was breaking the law by putting on PRO-EVENTS center presentations, and citing some BS stipulation?
Why didn’t the AG, the State’s Atty, the City Atty, or the Ethics board give a decision? Because they all give each other reach-arounds on a daily basis.
Like I said. No trust for state government, and I sure as F’ck don’t trust the healthcare industry. Quote what you want to, but I think money going into the state treasury has a way of getting mixed up with other conquests.
The video lottery money was suppose to go education but the spineless, gutless legislature took the money for general fund use. Realistically, the legies should have raised revenues from other areas so the money could have been used for education.
Like I said- THEY, the legislature, made that law – so THEY can change it any way they want to. When VOTERS make law DIRECTLY via the initative process, ONLY the voters can change it. Legislators messing with it is strictly verboten. Spending a few thousand city $$ on some presentations isn’t gonna lead to a Supreme court case. Redirecting 100’s of millions of state-wide $$ is.
Ruf – You make a great argument, and I love you for it, but legislators can change (manipulate) laws anyway they see fit, that was kind of my point about the EC, and BTW, that wasn’t about the money being spent on the presentations, it was about the misinformation being sent to the public, just for clarification. I don’t trust our lawmakers farther then I can throw a boulder. Sorry.