More higher education cuts?

[Nidaros]

Re: More higher education cuts?

i agree with you.. BTW the truth you spread... you would never make it in politics. well at least not in SD.

I agree with her as well. This cutting spending is such a popular theme everywhere and its soon to burn itself out if services are curtailed or ended all together in order to balance the budget. A simple poll tax could do wonders.

[leeshajo]

Re: More higher education cuts?

Possibly.

I will have to look at it again tomorrow when I go into work. It might be utter garbage...lol

[JimmyJack]

Re: More higher education cuts?

I just don't see raising taxes solving anything. Sure maybe we don't have a defict for a few years, but the government will keep spending and find our selves right back here asking, how much do we cut, can we afford to cut, can't we just raise taxes again...etc.

I don't think you understand the situation. If we had raised taxes a little bit a few years ago, we wouldn't be in this situation. The state has been spending one-time money (federal stimulus, trust funds, etc.) for most of the last decade to cover ongoing expenses. There hasn't been enough tax revenue to pay the bills for years. The one-time money goes away, but the expenses remain.

The governor is right, we can't keep doing that.

But the other part of this situation is that while we've been spending those one-time dollars, we have also been cutting budgets AND our needs have been growing. Costs for things like health care increase (a bad thing, but an increase nonetheless). More students seek college educations at our state universities (a good thing, and a cost increase). You could list about 1,000 cost increases, from the cost of paper clips to long-term care for the elderly. The point is that our needs for services, things we HAVE to do and things we WANT to do continue to grow every year. They just do.

So what do you do? Do you make a huge cut (up to 64 layoffs at SDSU under these proposed cuts) or do you say "This is important" and find cuts AND new revenues to pay for it?

Simplistic statements like: "If we tax more, they'll just spend it and we'll be in deficit again" don't really reflect the complexity of the situation.

This is about choices. If you're OK with 64 faculty and staff layoffs at SDSU, combined with much higher tuition that will slow growth and make it harder for many people to go to college, setting back essentially all the progress that the institution has made in the last six years or so, then by all means, take taxes off the table.

Since this is an athletics board, I'll add this: About 25 percent of the athletic budget comes from the general fund at SDSU. That will be subject to these same cuts. In our athletic department, $300,000 or so is pretty serious money.

[bigticket1]

Re: More higher education cuts?

It is a scary situation as a parent having one Daughter employed at SDSU and the other attending as a student. As an out of stater,it's easy to say that taxes should be raised or a new one started. Heaven knows that here in Minnesota we pay more state taxes than most every state,and are still in bad financial shape. But at some point a state has to decide if they want to maintain or improve on the quality of life they have,or if they want to go backwards. It appears that South Dakota may be at that point. And passing the hard decisions down to local governments and school districts will only worsen the problem.

[Jacks-02]

Re: More higher education cuts?

Simple way to nearly balance the budget would be to increase the state sales tax from 4% to 4.75%, which would increase sales tax receipts by 18.75%.

http://www.argusleader.com/assets/pdf/DF169165119.PDF

Looking at Daugaard's presentation on slide 5, sales tax revenue is currently about $700 million. 18.75% increase of that would be about $131 million, which balances the budget.

.75% increase in sales tax would be an extra $225 a year (less than $20 per month) on every $30,000 spent, which is probably about the take home pay of the average middle class South Dakotan.

I know there's a snowball's chance this would go through, but I think something definitely needs to be done on the revenue side, there just isn't enough fat to be trimmed anymore.

[leeshajo]

Re: More higher education cuts?

Seriously, it is going to take an ground movement to get Pierre to even consider raising taxes.

I honestly believe were the governor to come out and say here are our options, there are two....

we can

A) cut every program in the state affecting EVERY person in the state for the foreseeable future. And then tell them how it will affect the average household...

or

B) we can raise taxes such a small amount that most people will not even notice it in the course of their daily lives to the cost of maybe $200 per year?

I would like to think most reasonable people would take option B.... BUT there would be a very few LOUD vocal (if only we could get these people to Jacks games) opponents that would see it fail.

The status quo isn't working in South Dakota right now... we are a state that continually elects the same 'ol same 'ol at the detriment of our viability to function beyond the short term, let alone compete and bring in jobs and opportunities that will help our state grow.

There is a lot to be said for being conservative in your spending and spending only what you have. I respect it. I just wonder what is going to happen when all these cuts come into play and we all of a sudden have an additional few THOUSAND workers on unemployment, what will that do to our economy? Then next year we are in the same boat, not enough revenue with no answer in site other than cuts...

At some point we (yes, you and me and every other person) have to step up.

Short term, cutting everything sounds good. Long-term it is just a band-aide that is going to cause a ton more issues down the road.

What sucks about this, I think Matt Michels is one of the best guys I have ever met or interviewed, I like D. Daugaard I just wish they would do what is needed rather than what is expected right now.

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: More higher education cuts?

I don't understand why people are so vehemently opposed to slightly raising taxes in this state.

[Nidaros]

Re: More higher education cuts?

I don't understand why people are so vehemently opposed to slightly raising taxes in this state.

Every since George Bush(Dad Bush) got tricked into raising taxes by the Demos, when he had ran on the pledge "No new taxes", raising taxes as not been a popular move. Speaking of Governor Daugaard, he was just on KFGO Fargo, News and Views. He said the problems in SD were not as bad as in other states across the country. He said he wished SD had the energy tax surplus that they have in ND. He kind of fudged on the 10 per cent cut being applied to MOST areas of state government. Could it be some agency has gotten a waiver already? I read in the Argus that Supreme Court Justice David Gilbertson and SDSU grad, is not happy with the cutting process and its affect on the justice system.

With GOP controlling both houses, this 10 per cent cut seems to be a slam dunk. As stated its a just a plan, but really is it a plan almost certain to be enacted? Stay tuned.

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: More higher education cuts?

Every since George Bush(Dad Bush) got tricked into raising taxes by the Demos, when he had ran on the pledge "No new taxes", raising taxes as not been a popular move. Speaking of Governor Daugaard, he was just on KFGO Fargo, News and Views. He said the problems in SD were not as bad as in other states across the country which is true and could be fixed with minor taxation. He said he wished SD had the energy tax surplus that they have in ND. He kind of fudged on the 10 per cent cut being applied to MOST areas of state government. Could it be some agency one has gotten a waiver already? I read in the Argus that Supreme Court Justice David Gilbertson and SDSU grad, is not happy with the cutting process and its affect on the justice system.

With GOP controlling both houses, this 10 per cent cut seems to be a slam dunk. As stated its a just a plan, but really is it a plan almost certain to be enacted?

As I'm not very old and I don't follow politics very closely (and I'm too lazy to look it up), how often has the GOP controlled both houses in SD? It's got to most of the time, right?

[Yote53]

Re: More higher education cuts?

It's because we don't trust politicians to do what they say they are going to do with our tax money. There have been to many instances of abuse on both the state and national level. I'd be all for a slight increase in sales tax. I am dead set against a state income tax because once they put that on us then they have the power to play that class warfare game putting well to do South Dakotans against those at lower tax levels like they do on the national level, and that has worked out so well. A flat tax...mmm, maybe. Why not just have a sales tax and then we can use out of state money (vacationers, revenue from retail centers like SF) to help balance our books?

If the politicians said we need this slight increase to get us through this rough time and when things get better we'll lower the tax then I think we could all agree that it needs to be done. But the reality is that most of us believe that once a tax goes on the books it doesn't go away.

[Nidaros]

Re: More higher education cuts?

As I'm not very old and I don't follow politics very closely (and I'm too lazy to look it up), how often has the GOP controlled both houses in SD? It's got to most of the time, right?

I can't remember when the Democrats controlled either house, I suspect it was back when Richard Kneip was Governor.

[bigticket1]

Re: More higher education cuts?

It will be interesting to see what the Democrats have in their budget proposal which will come out later today. If I remember right,didn't Heideprim say during the campaign that the state budget situation was bad,but Daugaard kind of swept it under the rug ?

[LakeJack]

Re: More higher education cuts?

Every since George Bush(Dad Bush) got tricked into raising taxes by the Demos, when he had ran on the pledge "No new taxes", raising taxes as not been a popular move.

Are you kidding me. This nation was founded by folks who were opposed to taxes. Ever hear of the Boston Tea Party? This is not new. Americans NEVER want their taxes raised. Those of you who think it is no big deal to have the government take your dollars, don't wait send your contribution to Pierre. They will be glad to take your money. You can start helping with the budget deficit today.

I don't understand why people are so vehemently opposed to slightly raising taxes in this state.

How would you feel if your landloard slightly raised your rent, say just a few hundred dollars a year would you be ok with that? How is it different. People don't like to part with their money



I am not pickin' on anyone in particular with this post and think that higher taxes might be needed, but if you think raising taxes is an easy solution that the people will embrace without first being educated on the need and the value proposition, then I think you are flat wrong.

[SF_Rabbit_Fan]

Re: More higher education cuts?

It's because we don't trust politicians to do what they say they are going to do with our tax money. There have been to many instances of abuse on both the state and national level. I'd be all for a slight increase in sales tax. I am dead set against a state income tax because once they put that on us then they have the power to play that class warfare game putting well to do South Dakotans against those at lower tax levels like they do on the national level, and that has worked out so well. A flat tax...mmm, maybe. Why not just have a sales tax and then we can use out of state money (vacationers, revenue from retail centers like SF) to help balance our books?

If the politicians said we need this slight increase to get us through this rough time and when things get better we'll lower the tax then I think we could all agree that it needs to be done. But the reality is that most of us believe that once a tax goes on the books it doesn't go away.

This post summarizes why I would be against a state income tax, or pretty much any increase in taxes to fix a budget problem. If I get a paycut at work, my wife's boss isn't going to give her a raise just so we can maintain our lifestyle.

Several schools in the state have huge surpluses. Why not write a law that says they have to spend that money or put it back in the state coffers?

I realize this sentiment will be unpopular on this particular forum, but what's wrong with raising tuition at SDSU and USD, and the other schools? If each student at SDSU paid another $160 a year, those 64 jobs at SDSU could probably be saved. Students are the ones receiving direct benefit of their education, why shouldn't they be the ones footing the bill?

[89rabbit]

Re: More higher education cuts?

This post summarizes why I would be against a state income tax, or pretty much any increase in taxes to fix a budget problem. If I get a paycut at work, my wife's boss isn't going to give her a raise just so we can maintain our lifestyle.

Several schools in the state have huge surpluses. Why not write a law that says they have to spend that money or put it back in the state coffers?

I realize this sentiment will be unpopular on this particular forum, but what's wrong with raising tuition at SDSU and USD, and the other schools? If each student at SDSU paid another $160 a year, those 64 jobs at SDSU could probably be saved. Students are the ones receiving direct benefit of their education, why shouldn't they be the ones footing the bill?

Here is a White paper from the Jackrabbit Advocates' website that might help answer the question. It is a few years old but still relevant.

http://www.statealum.com/s/1108/inde...id=1&pgid=1246

South Dakota State University

and

Public Higher Education in South Dakota:

The Case for Grassroots Advocacy.

By Matthew L. Fuks

President & CEO

SDSU Alumni Association

During each comparatively brief South Dakota legislative session, the ever-increasing number of competing interests makes it more and more difficult, if not impossible, to gain appreciation and support for the long-term benefits derived from state funding for public higher education, in general, and for South Dakota State University in particular. A new approach to educating and informing elected state policymakers may be required.


The Trend: Students pay more. Taxpayers pay less.

South Dakota has been part of a national trend over the previous generation: A greater and greater proportion of the cost of public higher education instruction is paid for by students and their families through tuition and fees. Conversely, driven by ever increasing demands from health care, public safety, social services and K-12 education for state funding, taxpayers through state general fund appropriations have been paying a smaller and smaller proportion of instructional costs at universities. Some call this trend “The Privatization of Public Higher Education.”

This phenomenon — public higher education users paying a larger percentage of the cost of instruction over time — certainly is not new to South Dakota, nor is it unique to the state. Since the late 1970s, state government budget processes steadily have shifted higher percentages of the costs of instruction to students and their families. The tipping point at South Dakota State University, for instance, occurred during the 2007-2008 academic year when 52.4 percent of higher education instructional costs were borne by the individual student. Students paid for 53.4 percent of their instructional costs during the 2008-2009 academic year. Forecasts both in South Dakota and nationally are for this trend to continue as the economy recovers from the most serious downturn in many decades. Demands for resources will continue to increase from the health care, public safety, social services, and primary and secondary education sectors, yet state government’s general tax revenues will struggle to regain previous levels and rates of growth. During the upcoming year, students at South Dakota State likely will pay 54 percent of their costs of education and taxpayers 46 percent.

It has long been accepted that the value of public higher education is comprised of two equally important components – one a public benefit and the second a private benefit. The benefits to the public from a well-educated, inspired population and workforce include higher household incomes, stronger economic growth, vibrant communities and a more prosperous future. The benefits to individuals with college or university degrees include greater earning power from professional careers, higher standards of well-being and greater prospects for personal prosperity. This principle of both public and private benefits from higher education investments is the foundation for a partnership between taxpayers and students in funding public higher education partially with tuition and fees and partially with state government general funds. The appropriate combination of taxpayer and tuition and fee funding has no definitive, objective answer. The combination of funding is the result of the policy- and budget-making processes of state government. What is clear, however, is that access to the benefits of public higher education become more and more limiting to students from low- and moderate-income households as the cost of instruction shifts from state government general funds to tuition and fee revenues. What is also very clear is that as access to public higher education for individuals becomes restricted because of higher tuition and fees, the long-term public benefits of stronger economic growth, vibrant communities and a more prosperous future associated with a highly educated, inspired population are reduced. . . . (read more)


Go State!