A cut in the right direction

The RCJ has a features a story that Gov – elect Daugaard will take office and cut his own salary by 10%.  He’s also going to be requiring the same pay cut of other top administrators —

Is this merely symbolic — or a sign of fiscal restraint to come.

19 Replies to “A cut in the right direction”

  1. Anonymous

    I am going to have to reverse some of my thinking about our new Gov. It appers that he is more than capable of dealing with th massive problems we will be facing this session in working with a budhget out of kilter. So far, so good.

  2. duggersd

    While what is being done is a drop in the bucket, it is symbolic of what needs to be done. He is leading by example. I am hoping there will be a lot of other budgetary cuts. I am glad I do not have to make those decisions.

  3. Arrowhead

    So does this mean Gant, Jackley, Barnett, Sattgast, Jarrod Johnson, the PUC crew and others will be taking a pay cut?

    If so does that mean Dusty will have to take a pay cut 10% under his PUC job or 10% off CoS? If it’s 10% off CoS he’s still making for money than he did in PUC.

  4. Anonymous

    I think that this is a good move. He needs to show that he is serious about EVERY department cutting back, and it should start at home.

  5. Anonymous

    I’m against it if he tries to cut legislator pay.

    If anything we should pay our legislature more because to have a true citizen legislature we need to make sure everyone can serve and not just the independantly wealthy or the retired.

  6. I would rather be fishing

    Your right duggersd, he is leading by example. I think it’s a good idea. I support it. I hope we continue to get this on the State level because we are NOT getting it on the National level!

    you know, there was a big change in the make up of the U.S. Congress this last election. The voters said, whether you agreed with them or not, they wanted to send someone to Washington that will cut the spending, cut the deficit and get finances under control. All the major polls said somewhere around 75% of the voters did not approve of what either party was doing!

    And now today I read in the New York Times that Republicans and Democrats are agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts, jobless benefits, and other tax cuts for two years?.and that this will likely cost more than the stimulus did! And it sounds like everyone is going to go along with it!

    Will anyone stand up and just say STOP THIS MADNESS!

  7. duggersd

    Fishing, not extending the Bush tax cuts is actually a tax increase. Those are the tax rates of today. The Dems are talking about increasing taxes on certain people.
    The problem with the numbers they are using is that the figures to not take into account human nature. If you tax a human activity, you get less of it. So if you tax someone’s income at a higher rate if they make more, they are less inclined to earn the higher rate. It has been shown the treasury actually increased its take after the Bush rates went into effect. The problem has to do with spending. Which brings us to the story that unemployment insurance is actually a stimulant. Sorry, I do not see that.
    How about we cut the spending to the 2008 levels? Where would that take us?

  8. anon

    I would prefer that since the Bush tax cuts were temporary that they should expire when they were set to expire…you know, kind of like the law was written.

    Then if we decide we need to revisit the benefits of the tax reduction on a longer basis, we can debate the bill again, weighing the historical successes of the breaks and where they make the most sense.

    The break for the higher income earners was sold as job creation…it didn’t work the last time, why will it work now. The break for the middle and below earners was to drive more dollars into consumer spending. If it worked keep it going, if it didn’t work, kill it as well.

    So what should the Obama tax breaks look like?

  9. duggersd

    Anon, I am not sure where you were in the first part of the decade. The fact of the matter is there were a lot of jobs created. It was not until 2007 or maybe even 2008 you saw the unemployment start to climb. And that was due to crashes caused by things other than lower tax rates.

  10. Mike Quinlivan

    Duggersd,

    I tax decrease, with an increase in spending, ala President Bush II, is a tax increase. Our taxes were never really “cut” in the first place. See Milton Friedman.

  11. anon

    Dugger. I’m talking about job creation and not unemployment. Can you show me how the temporary tax cut did what it was promised to do and create jobs. The other promise is that it would end in 2010. I’m not arguing one party against another, I’m looking for something that will work.

    Here’s a jobs report from the WSJ at the end of the Bush era:

    http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

    Hey if tax cuts create jobs I’m not seeing it here.

    Remember TEFRA? That was the largest peace time tax increase in history…remember who did it? Remember what it rescinded? ERTA, the largest tax decrease in history.

    Ronald Reagan had the guts and wisdom to champion both.

    My fear is that slavish devotion to dogma will bite us all in the butt – one cheek or the other.

  12. DDC

    “Ronald Reagan had the guts and wisdom to champion both.”

    That isn’t even close to being true. Reagan only agreed signed the bill after he extracted a promise from congress that they would cut spending by $3 for every $1 in tax increases.

    Those cuts never happened and congress passed the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1982 over his veto one week after he signed TEFRA. The cuts never happened and the deficit continued to grow.

    Raising taxes didn’t fix the deficit then and it won’t now. It’s a spending problem, pure and simple.

    But hey, if raising taxes is a good idea, let’s let all of the cuts expire.

  13. anon

    DDC, so other than the “extraction that never happened” Reagan didn’t sign any tax increases into law…that’s crap and you know it.

    Here’s what Reagan’s former domestic policy adviser, Bruce Bartlett has to say and a list of Reagan’s tax cuts and tax increases:

    http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1632/reagans-tax-increases

    So who was it again that said deficits don’t matter? If you answered Cheney and Reagan – ding, ding, ding – you win!

    I never said I was for letting the tax cuts expire, what I am for is looking at if they accomplished what they set out to do…you know create jobs on the high end and keep people spending on the lower end. Did it work?

    We’re at the lowest tax rates since the 1950’s and people are still going to bitch.

    Too bad that we didn’t charge a little more than .0077% on the trillions we secretly lent to banks (foreign and domestic) and large corporations. Of course, we had to do that to make sure that they could be a part of the most profitable economy since they started keeping track 60 years ago.

  14. anon

    I would vote for mostly symbolic considering that he and most of the people he has coming on staff are coming from lower paying jobs…so it’s more like just getting less of a raise and not a cut. No real sacrifice.

  15. I would rather be fishing

    Fact check sites researched it and reported: A permanent extension of all of those tax cuts without future increases in taxes or reductions in federal spending would roughly double the projected budget deficit in 2020.

    Sounds like we are going to have to do a whole lot of cutting in order not to raise taxes in the future!

  16. DDC

    Comment by anon on December 6, 2010 @ 9:33 pm

    …Reagan didn?t sign any tax increases into law?that?s crap and you know it.

    Where did I say that? Your next statement and link are irrelevant because I never made the claim that Reagan never signs any bills that raised taxes. I challenged you claim that “Ronald Reagan had the guts and wisdom to champion both.? He did not “champion” them.

    So who was it again that said deficits don?t matter? If you answered Cheney and Reagan ? ding, ding, ding ? you win!

    Actually, Reagan never said that. Cheney said “You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,”. Do you really listen to Dick Cheney for fiscal & economic policy? I don’t. He’s a moron.

    I never said I was for letting the tax cuts expire, what I am for is looking at if they accomplished what they set out to do?you know create jobs on the high end and keep people spending on the lower end. Did it work?

    It’s impossible to prove one way or the other. The fact is that tax rates are only part of the equation. Monetary policy, regulation and other government interference all play a large roll, as does the natural ebb and flow of the economy. I can pick two points in time and say that raising or lowering taxes did or did not “create jobs”, but it really doesn’t prove anything.

    The one thing that we do know for a fact is that increasing taxes does not increase tax revenues (as a percentage of GDP). Since 1950, tax revenues have hovered around 18% of GDP, regardless of the tax rate. Raising taxes will change that. It will only stunt economic growth and make total GDP lower than it would be with lower taxes.

    Tax policy should not be about “creating jobs” anyways. It should about raising the money to fund the necessary functions of government. History has shown that the government will not receive more than 18% of GDP in revenues, so there is no reason to raise taxes.

    We?re at the lowest tax rates since the 1950?s and people are still going to bitch.

    We’re at nearly 10% unemployment and our tax dollars are being flushed down the toilet at a record rate. I would say that people have a right to bitch. Our taxes might be low now, but eventually we have to pay back our debt, which means that taxed will be unnecessarily high in the future.

    Too bad that we didn?t charge a little more than .0077% on the trillions we secretly lent to banks (foreign and domestic) and large corporations. Of course, we had to do that to make sure that they could be a part of the most profitable economy since they started keeping track 60 years ago.

    It’s too bad we did it at all. It’s a big part of the reason this crap happened at all. Everyone knew the government would ride in with bags of cash to pass out. Oh well, pretty much ensures that we’ll get to eventually do it again!

  17. DDC

    Above I meant “Raising taxes will not change that.” instead of “Raising taxes will change that.”

  18. Me

    How’s that cut work when your adding those “Special Advisor/Czars” positions… I suppose they are working for free??? I bet most will be in the $70’s to 80’s if not more..not much of a cut is it. Another layer of goverment. A new one as a matter of fact and by a republican…more bosses, fewer workers…interesting