South Dakota is ridiculous. These past four months have made me glad that I don't plan to raise a family here. At the beginning of the calendar year, while the Legislature was beginning their session, our governor proposed a 10% cut to all state-funded agencies: Game Fish and Parks, Medicaid, and EDUCATION, just to name a few. Do you have any idea what a 10% cut to a school means? To put it in perspective, the Sioux Falls School District, the largest in the state, could cut all extra-curriculum programming (sports, fine arts, etc), stop all bus routes, significantly reduce the number of administration, among other cuts, and they still wouldn't be able to make up all of the money that would be lost in that cut. And should I mention that South Dakota teachers are already the worst paid teachers in the nation? Good plan to take away more of the money they already don't have--that's a good way to keep teachers working here. Ultimately, by the time the state budget was finalized, the cut ended up being only a 6.6% cut--still not what you want, but at least more manageable.
So this morning while I'm getting ready for work I heard a news clip on the radio about a piece of legislation that was passed which allows the governor to use a $16 million fund to help develop the economy of the state. In layman's terms? The governor is going to use this fund, which is fueled by taxpayer's money, to help large construction corporations with the cost of the building projects. His goal? To bring more business--and subsequently, more people--into the state. Brilliant Mr. Governor, just brilliant. I wish you the best of luck enticing people--people with families--to move to South Dakota when it's been made quite clear that this state sees education as an expense (and an expense that can be readily cut, no less), not an investment.
(full article found here)
Not to fully disagree, because obviously education is important and huge cuts could be disastrous, but you realize that Sioux Falls wasn't hit nearly as hard by the recession as the rest of the country and they experienced a significantly delayed recession when it did come? This was due to a large amount of growth during this time. Look at Harrisburg. It's gotten huge! Lincoln county's grown has been exponential in the last decade. They experienced about 85% growth since 2000. The population almost doubled. 2010 Census data shows how much the Sioux Falls area grew. That growth wouldn't be possible without construction and the jobs and infrastructure it creates. Driving business will bring people to South Dakota, specifically the eastern half of the state. The tax base is significantly lower than surrounding areas. Minnesota is losing businesses to SD at a pretty quick pace so the governors plan seems to be an investment in something that is already working. Also, bringing in businesses and more people creates a larger tax base which will in turn fund education through property taxes.
ReplyDeleteNow don't get me wrong, you're going to need an educated workforce to run said businesses, however if all of the cuts to SF schools you mentioned above, don't even make up for the cut, $16 million for the entire state would be a drop in the bucket and those cuts would still be made. Those cuts are worth billions from my understanding. I just don't think this $16 billion fund is the one you should be picking on to fund education shortfall. I'm guessing there are other ways to make up that money besides a fund being used on construction which will indeed create jobs and draw people to the state.
For census information go here: http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/
This link has more detailed data: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-01.pdf
This link allows you to sort by county or city for very detailed information. It only goes through 2006 since the government hasn't released specific data on individual cities yet. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/46000.html
Also I just read the article and it sounds like the $16 million in funding is coming from taxes paid by contractors. So it's not going to be coming out of yours or your families pockets unless you have family members who are contractors. The people doing the building are paying the taxes.
ReplyDelete"The fund will get revenue by taking 22 percent of contractors excise taxes, which typically yield $16 million a year."
Oh, and another thing, if business isn't brought to SD, you'll start to see a trend of losing recent graduates of your state-subsidized universities to other areas looking for jobs. I would most definitely get a degree at SDSU or USD these days then leave to find a job elsewhere. The quality of the education at those schools for the cheap price they pay.
ReplyDeleteTo put it in perspective, a new SDSU student (from SD) will pay approximately $13,020/year for tuition, fees, and room and board in the dorms. For out of state students it's only about $14,600. Not too much of an increase. In comparision, an in-state student at the U of M will pay approximately $19,945/year and an out of state (non-reciprocity)student will pay roughly $24,245. My question is, why in the hell are people going to the U of M? Business. The opportunity for internships and jobs post college are significantly greater in the Twin Cities are. I doubt it's the education quality because I believe both SDSU and USD to be very good academically.
FYI, I found the tuition information on the SDSU and U of M websites, respectively.
I don't have to work in the morning and took a nap this afternoon so I'm not quite ready for bed yet but I promise I'm done arguing now.
ReplyDelete