Or would you rather swing on a star….

Here’s my question for those people fretting over balancing our state budget and getting of the drug of choice (structural deficits) — would you rather our state have to issue IOUs like trendsetter California.

IOU

14 Replies to “Or would you rather swing on a star….”

  1. Duh

    Everyone’s gonna bitch, but you have to get rid of the deficit. Maybe temper it a bit, 5% this year. Another 5% next year.

  2. Name

    Knock yourself out, but until people can show how it’s a shared sacrifice that hits all segments of the economy and don’t send us back to the dark ages, then I will look for other options.

    So last I checked, California is just one of 50 states. Any other states doing things that we might want to look at? How are they cutting and how are they increasing revenues might be a good place to start.

    Duh, your suggestion of having the pain spread over 2 years puts you almost in line with what the Dems are trying to do.

    1. duggersd

      Perhaps we could look at Illinois. They are increasing taxes to solve their problem. I read an article this morning where the guy who started Jimmie John’s is looking at moving to Florida. We should be looking at these states and seeing who would be a good match for SD.

  3. Ghost Repeater

    We should balance the budget. We should use our reserves to minimize the cost in lost services and matching federal funds. This would put us in balance over three years. That’s not kicking the can down the road and it’s not the one size fits all cookie cutter approach the adminstration is promoting.

  4. Duh

    Name: My comment was a play off of Lee Schoebeck regarding that this might be a killer in terms of job cuts, etc. 5% over two years may be a more prudent way to choke down the horse pill.

  5. caheidelberger

    False dilemma, Kristi. IOUs are not a good idea, and they are not our only option. $150 per person covers the structural deficit. Why is that pain less preferable to the pain of firing hundreds of teahers, increasing class sizes, shorting health care providers millions of dollars, and decreasing services?

  6. pass it on down

    caheidelberger………$150 per person covers the structural deficit. Why is that pain less preferable to the pain of firing hundreds of teahers, increasing class sizes, shorting health care providers millions of dollars……..
    caheidelberger why should I keep paying….some dont have the ability to pay anymore…..but if it is that easy why not pay off the national debt its only $49000 or so per person. I mean it is only pocket change right……dont you see if we dont stop spending now it will only be $250 next year….500 the year after that…..1000……..2000….4000…..oh wait when will it end……good by SD help Cali..

  7. ferber

    Cory’s assumption is based on the fact that all 800,000 of SD’ans would pay that amount. Uh, this 800,000 includes infants, young students, Native Americans (not sure what taxes they pay if on the res or not), oldsters on fixed incomes, disabled, etc, most of which do not pay taxes. So the actual per person amount is a lot higher.

  8. Les

    I would say that is probably about where we will end up by the time this budget is fought through Ghost. Some reserves and some cuts moving us “hopefully” towards higher revenue flows in a few years while operating under a more cautious budget.

    And for Pete’s sake legislators, DESIGNATED funds are NOT RESERVE funds!

  9. MOSES

    Bring those high paying union jobs to South Dakota, in the private sector,wow forgot the teamsters are still here might have to pay a decent wage.