How about cutting some no-bid contracts Mikey?

by

Not all of Mike Rounds cuts are a bad idea (though most of them are). The biggest disappointment is that he has cut only one FTE (and it was a good program). I broke down how I feel about them;

GOOD CUTS
– Catastrophic Correctional Health Care, $800,000.
Not sure how you budget for catastrophic health care. I feel this is a good cut because it should be paid for on a case by case basis.
– Archeological Research Center Program, $308,782.
Though I’m all for science funding, I think during a recession this is a reasonable cut.
– BOR new accounting staff, $213,141.
No new staff should be added during this time.
– DOC food service reduction, $200,000.
This one is confusing. My question is; we’re we paying too much for this service that now we can make a cut? I think this service is a contract. Maybe this should have been cut a long time ago.

ON THE FENCE
– State Fair, $774,643.
I do think we need to fund the fair, but we shouldn’t continue to give them money without accountability. I think the fair should rotate to different towns every year and have the cities hosting it help come up with funding.
– Division of Arts, $668,509.
If this money is coming out of public education arts programs, that’s bad. If this cut will affect grants, etc, it’s a good cut. One thing I have noticed about the SDAC is that they continue to give to same old people, year after year, who can’t make a living on their own as an artist. There is also a lot of favoritism. For instance, one year an individual performer got a grant, he was the husband of the former SDAC director and another year the SD Symphony received a $35,000 grant even though they were operating in the black without the assistance.
– HPV vaccination program, $276,995.
I think this vaccination is important, but I also think this could be paid for through federal funds. I also think this is something insurance companies should cover as preventative. It might also be a good will gesture if our monster hospital industrial complexes provided this vaccination for free to people who could not afford it.
– FTE for REED Data Center, $155,359.
This fiber optic network is needed, but this project can be put on hold.
– Adult Medicaid dental services, $1,485,987.
I would like to see the specifics on this.
– SDPB tower maintenance, $230,000.
This is similar to the REED project.
– Human Services base cuts, $800,000.
If this department can still survive after taking the cut, it’s a good idea. Unfortunately, there should have been cuts like this TO every bureaucratic department to make it fair and across the board.
– DSS Independent Living Services, $222,000.
Foster care in SD has often been a contentious subject. If this program works, keep the dough, if not, cut it.

BAD CUTS
State Workers
– State Employee Compensation, $6,728,980.
– Discretionary Provider Inflation, $5,510,508.
Not sure how the state can make these cuts? I guess the employees will have to pickup the slack.
Education
– Teacher Compensation Assistance Program, $4 million.
– Education Service Agencies, $2.2 million.
– South Dakota School for the Deaf, $2 million.
– Special education, $1,632,256.
– Career and Technical Education funding, $1.5 million.
– BOR Institutional Reductions, $500,000.
– Alternative Education Program, $450,000.
– State Aid to Technology Increase, $309,226.
– Birth to Three Connections, $2,130,170.
It’s no secret that Rounds is anti-education. Education should always be the LAST thing you cut during poor economic times. He just doesn’t get it, once again. Must of been his poor education.
Corrections
– DOC Adult Education Program, $210,789.
– DOC Community Transition Fee, $200,750.
Educating prisoners helps them become better adjusted when they get out of prison. By cutting these programs we are just setting them up to be repeat offenders costing us more in the long run in incarceration costs. This cut is just plain stupid.
Infrastructure
– Bureau of Administration Base Maintenance & Repair Funding, $2,451,444.
– Board of Regents base maintenance and repair funding, $1,632,999.
Rounds cries about needing money to repair roads and bridges than turns around and cuts infrastructure spending in other departments. Huh?
General
– Sales Tax on Food Refund Program, $2,353,302.
This cut is quite hypocritical of Rounds, but no surprise from Mr. Broken promises. If you remember a few years back when the food tax elimination was on the ballot one of Mike’s arguments to keep it was this program. Now with it being cut, the slack will have to be picked up by private nonprofit food pantries. Thanks Mike.
– Co-op Extension Service, $1 million.
We live in a time when people are being encouraged to grow their own gardens to help save on food costs, so what does out genius Governor do? Cuts the service that helps people plant their own gardens. Thank goodness we still have the googles to help us out (and flying tomato blog).
– DENR EPA federal funds swap, $230,000.
This should come as no surprise that Rounds would cut EPA spending when he trying to get more coal plants, a nuclear plant and a refinery built in SD. Go figure.
Public Health
– SCHIP shortfall (pending reauthorization), $752,959.
– Adult Medicaid Primary Care Case Management, $647,360.
– Nursing Home Client Cost Share, $429,678.
– Rehab Services Independent Living Services, $378,130.
– Mosquito control program, $300,000.
A healthy society is just as important as an educated one. Well we know how he feels about education, so these cuts are no surprise. The mosquito control cut is confusing though. This program is tried and true and has proven to keep the bugs at bay. This summer I noticed that the bugs were well controlled on the bike trails and in my yard. What a bonehead cut. West Nile – bring it on.

Once again, Rounds has proven he is not a competent or effective leader. He also doesn’t represent the public very well. You’ll notice he proposed only ONE cut to FTE’s and NO cuts in some of his lucrative no-bid contracts to his buddies. Mike has proven once again that his campaign contributors are more important than the hardworking taxpayers of SD. Thanks for nothing, Mike.

My suggestion would have been a 5-10% across the board cut to EVERY department and program, to be fair. Secondly I would have suggested we charge a 4.5% retail tax on ALL non-essential goods and services. No exceptions. Then we eliminate taxes on food and utilities.

That’s why I could never serve in the legislature, my ideas make sense.

Another uninformed decision by the SF City Council

by

This could be us, if we don’t act now. “Heh, Heh, the fishin’ pretty good in Sioux Falls, huh daddy?”

Though it is disappointing that our intitiative bit the dust, I am more disappointed in the seven councilors who voted for the $38 million dollar bond to pay for the levees. Do I think the project needs to be done? Definately. But it all comes down to timing and Federal money, and FACTS, not gut feelings.

Some things the councilors did not take into consideration;

– They could still negotiate with FEMA. FEMA is the federal agency that created this flood plain, it should be the Federal government’s responsibility to fix and pay for the problem and last I checked people in Sioux Falls pay Federal income taxes, the Feds owe us.

– Though it is true we have to foot the bill for the 41st Street bridge ($12 Million) we could have pulled that money from the CIP (where it originally was) but instead it was thrown into the loan so the city could spend the $12 million in the CIP on WANTS. Very, very, fiscally irresponsible considering our interest on the loan will be over $8 million to pay back.

– This city hasn’t had a major flood since the 1950’s and there hasn’t been ANY studies done for at least 20 to 30 years about where we stand for floods. We also have been in a drought for the last 4 years, at least, in SD. (ironically why the Lewis and Clark pipeline is so vital) There have only been two incidents in recent years that had nothing to do with the levees or the floodplain. In 1996 the spillway had to built up because it couldn’t handle the Spring thaw and in 2005 we got two torrential rains that backed up into people’s basements do to inadequate sewer and street drainage. The levees held then too. I have said to this day, that happened because for the past 20 years the city has been putting bandades on infrastructure while going gungho on new development and growth, and they continue this practice to this day. You can thank Steve Metli, former city planner for that.

– Individual property owners are responsible for their own flood insurance, not the city. If they don’t want to pay for the insurance for the next couple of years, don’t buy it or move. Ironically not one single property owner of the 1,900 properties in the proposed floodplain came last night to plead with the council to vote for this loan. NOT A SINGLE ONE! Yet Munson told us there was many concerned citizens, but I guess not concerned enough to show up to this important decision that would affect their property. He also said he “Feels for people” on fixed incomes that may have to buy this insurance. Well, if you are so concerned about fixed income people, stop raising our taxes on food to pay for streets that we don’t need. That’s a start.

– And lastly, my biggest argument why this loan was a bad idea was because once we pay for this up front, what obligation does the Federal government have to pay us back? None. The argument is we would save money on bonds and bids if we do the project now. Which is a dumb argument, considering if the FEDs pay for it, instead of us, who cares what it cost, we won’t have to pay it back. The objective of Obama’s stimulous package is to create 5 million jobs. What incentive does the Obama administration have to create jobs for infrastructure projects in a city that has a low unemployment rate and the credit rating to pay for these projects on their own?

The solution?

Even though Staggers voted for the project he tried to get an amendment to push the bridge back into the CIP (where it belongs) so we could reduce our loan. Nobody seconded the motion.

I think we should pay for the bridge out of our CIP and make cuts to wants. I think we should get on the horn to Ironic Johnny, Timmy come lately and Stephanie Herseth-Sandals Vaction and get them in on the stimulous package to get us Federal aid for the levees.

Of course now it is too late. Councilors voted with their emotions last night (and made me the butt of several jokes about being opposed to it). Councilor Litz even talked about global warming and Katrina (can’t remember the last time we were hit by a hurricane).

In an Argus Leader interview, Councilor Costello, the loan dissenter had this to say;

“You have to measure the risk with the cost,” he said. “We know we have flood protection.”

Of course the AL editorial board gave the decision a big old thumbs up;

And it would be sad if the bond vote-repeal effort connection somehow becomes a campaign issue in the 2010 mayoral race.

Oh, it will be an issue!

Yes, the council has a duty to gather all pertinent information that might influence its decisions, and that includes the effect of the bond vote on the repeal effort.

But given that due process has been upheld, it was appropriate – indeed necessary – for the council to move forward.

SF City Council Meeting – Tonight – 7 PM

by

If you support our initiative to lower sales taxes I encourage you attend or watch the council meeting tonight at 7 PM. You can either watch it LIVE on cable channel 16 or online LIVE at http://siouxfalls.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2.

Our group will be confronting the council about the legality of borrowing money against a higher tax rate, in essence possibly ending our petition drive and tying the hands of future councils and mayors to reduce our taxes.

The Argus Leader wrote an article today on the matter;

A group of residents trying to lower the sales tax rate in Sioux Falls fears that tonight’s City Council vote to authorize $38 million in new bonds could undercut their efforts.

The group, Citizens for a Responsible Sales Tax, is collecting signatures to put the sales tax question to a citywide vote. If the group collects enough signatures, voters would have the choice of keeping the city’s share of sales tax at 2 percent or dropping it to 1.9 percent.

But the decision to issue bonds could put a stop to that effort because the South Dakota Constitution says that any revenue source pledged to pay off bonds or other debts is “irrepealable” until the debt is paid off.

Even if this ordinance would not undercut our effort I find it fiscally irresponsible to borrow money that we have to pay interest on for 20 years if there is a good possibility we will be getting the money interest free from Washington to do the project with the only disadvantage being we may have to wait an extra 12 months to move dirt. Big Whoop.

“It is kind of ironic that this is the way it’s going – that someone in Minneapolis is telling us about South Dakota law,” Staggers said.

Amundson said Sunday that bond work is highly specialized, one reason he wants Aby to render an opinion. Amundson also thinks the people working for the initiated measure should get their own opinion from their own lawyer.

“I think the person who it comes from is the attorney for the people who file the initiative,” he said.

Once again, another Munson political appointee forgets who pays his wages and who he works for. The people. We own the city, not the mayor. It seems he thinks his job is defending Munson from the very people who pay his salary and elected him. I think it may be time for him to reread his job description.

It’s unclear what, if any, effect today’s bond vote will have on efforts to lower the sales tax. Portions of the tax already are pledged to pay off other bonds. But in two previous citywide elections, the administration of Mayor Dave Munson has come out on the losing end – once to raise the sales tax to pay for a recreation center and once to borrow $12 million to build an indoor swimming pool.

And that is what is making us suspicious. If Munson can’t beat us at the polls, he’ll try to beat us with the horribly written state laws we have. Go figure. I have to be honest with you. If this does make the ballot I have no idea which way the vote will go. There will be a lot of support and good arguments on both sides. This isn’t about that, it’s about letting the citizens decide and educating the community on the spending spree Mr. Munson has been on.

Please join us tonight. I’ll be the one wearing the cowboy hat and boots.

Rounds proposing 200 new rate and tax increases in 2009

by

What a guy! People are losing their jobs left and right, the economy is in the pooper, and Mike’s solution, stick it to the man a little harder.

SouthDakotaMac puts the beat down on him.

The Budget Sock Puppet delivers the Rounds spin on their new maniac tax spree: We’re long past due – in fact we’ve one tax hike that was last changed way back in 1951!

And those water permit fees ain’t been hiked up since 1977. And lookee here, boys! We got $8 drivers license taxes and now let’s hike those suckers up to 20 bucks!!! WooooooooWEEEE! And look yonder, Governor, heah comes Princess Shantel and she’s gonna increase taxes 12 million bucks on old cars and pickups ‘cause them stupid po’ folk want to pay mo’ taxes too! YeeeeeeHAW!!!! Who the hell cares if po’ folks are losing their jobs and the banks are foreclosing on homes and repossessin’ their cars. We gonna have us a passel o’ tax increases and party like it’s 2 double-ott nine!

Solution for road money; TAX POOR MORE!

by

This is one way to get the money we need.

Once again legislators are punishing the poor and thrifty by suggesting we raise registration fees JUST on the people who can afford it the least; people who drive older cars.

People who own older cars could end up paying more to license them if a group of state lawmakers has its way.

A bill that will be introduced in the next legislative session would require owners of older cars to pay the same fees applied to newer cars. Currently, the owners of any noncommercial vehicle more than five years old pay 70 percent of the original licensing fee.

Depending on a car’s weight, it would cost owners $9 to $19.50 a year in additional licensing fees.

Representative Shantel ‘Al Bundy’ Krebs is leading the fight. Yeah, because shoe sales(wo)men have the best ideas.

Licensing fees for trucks and cars are based on their weight. The heavier the vehicle, the more it costs to license, because heavier vehicles exact a greater toll of wear and tear on highways and roads.

Eliminating the discounts for older vehicles would generate an extra $12 million a year that counties could use to build and maintain roads, said Rep. Shantel Krebs, R-Sioux Falls. Krebs is one of the lawmakers supporting the measure.

Eliminating the discount for older cars makes sense, Krebs said.

Maybe in your bad math, help the priviledged more, mentality.

First off the fee is unfair as it currently stands. If you own a vehicle that is 2,000 pounds and 4 years old your fee is $30 but if you own a vehicle that is 10,000 pounds your fee is $65. Shouldn’t it be $150 if we are truly taxing by weight?

BUT LET’s TRAVEL TO COMMON SENSE LAND FOR JUST A MOMENT(I know this will be hard for my Big Government Republican readers, but please bare with me.)

I think the best solution is to hope for Federal dollars from Obama’s stimulus package. The second solution would be making cuts, cuts, cuts to Rounds Kingdom in Pierre.

But if we still need the money I suggest we fix the weight-to-fee issue as it currently stands. Tax accordingly to the weight (which we are not currently doing).

Charge a retail luxury tax on on personal vehicles over $60,000. If you can afford the vehicle you can afford the tax, and more then likely finance the taxes due in your payments.

If all else fails, we can have a rate increase, but it should be across the board keeping the discounts in place. People who drive older vehicles probably drive less. If they can’t afford a new vehicle, they probably have trouble putting gas in the vehicle they currently have.

Taxing the poor more is a stupid idea, in these economic times, but if we must truly raise fees, make it fair. Once again it proves our legislators are short on progressive ideas. Whadda yah expect?Thirty years of secretive, regressive Republican rule will do that to a state.