SDWC Exclusive: House GOP to release their own education funding proposal, with no new taxes.


My spies have been working overtime. Because they just passed me a big scoop.

GOP Leadership in the House apparently released two proposals last night to the Republican caucus to increase teacher pay without a tax increase.

Plan A consists of amendments to the Governor’s bill. Plan A consists of a 3 year phase-in with the target additions to education funding being $30 million the 1st year, $20 million the 2nd and $20 million the 3rd. They would identify $30 Million from the General Bill + $19 Million per Blue Ribbon Task Force

House Majority Leader Brian Gosch

House Majority Leader Brian Gosch

(SB131), moving the Pension Fund into General Fund. This version would maintain Capital Outlay flexibility at 20%

Plan B would be an amendment to SB 131. There would be a 3 Year roll out with target amounts the same as Plan A. Taking .5 of the Capital Outlay mil levy, shifting it to the General Fund, Getting a total of $35 mil General Fund Dollars, and they would eliminate flexibility within Capital Outlay, and adding $19mil per the Blue Ribbon Task Force (SB131), moving the Pension Fund into the General Fund.

Apparently, moving the pension fund into the general fund adds a total of $35 mil General Fund Dollars. And there are amendments to SB 131 that they plan.

I’m sure that a few details are getting missed as the information is passed to me by my sources. But, the big takeaway is that the House believes they can increase education funding with no new taxes, which had previously been thought of as impossible.

I’m told they hope to generate support for these plans early next week, since during that time the House will be voting on HB 1182, which is the Governor’s plan to increase taxes for the purpose of putting new dollars into education and property tax relief.

17 Replies to “SDWC Exclusive: House GOP to release their own education funding proposal, with no new taxes.”

  1. Springer

    How does moving the pension fund into the general fund work? Wouldn’t the general fund then be spend the pension fund dollars, and then what happens to the pension fund? Please explain this better.

      1. Springer

        Ok, it’s the levy. But the monies raised by the pension levy would then be deposited into the general fund, and they could be spent for anything, right? What happens to the pension fund eventually?

        Don’t get me wrong. I would like a different idea than raising taxes. But simply moving money from one hand to the other hand doesn’t solve anything. What am I missing?

    1. Anonymous

      I had the same thought, Springer. The description of Plan A doesn’t indicate a moving of the levy, just “. . . moving the Pension Fund into the General Fund”. Plan B specifically references moving of .5 of the levy into education.

      I am hopeful that there are ways to handle this without more taxation. Just because Daugaard is pushing something doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.

  2. Springer

    I like the idea of taking 0.5 of the mil levy for capital outlay and moving that to general fund. But if the flexibility to use capital outlay dollars is removed, will that really free up that much capital outlay funds into the general fund? Right now some capital outlay dollars already can be used for textbooks, computers, some warranties, and part of contract transportation, saving general fund dollars. In other words, the general fund is already using capital outlay funds, so if the flexibility is removed, won’t that affect how much the general fund is actually increasing?

    Where is the $19 million per the Blue Ribbon Task Force coming from?

    I’m glad to see a different proposal than tax increases, but these are questions I would like to see better explained in detail. Or is just smoke and mirrors?

  3. Cliff Hadley

    Very encouraging. Now require smaller districts to cut administration by sharing superintendents and the money for teachers would be a piece of cake.

    1. Anonymous

      This is a great idea, but the trick is to get individual schools to let it be done. If the super is physically located at one school the other school(s) will fee they are going to get short changed, even if they actually won’t.

      I am also for consolidation where it would increase efficiency.

  4. Anonymous

    This nothing more than an attempt to scuttle the Governor’s plan. There are some that don’t care that we are 50th in teachers salaries, in fact they are proud of it.

    1. Cliff Hadley

      Anonymous 1:06… You would be correct. Mr. Gosch is proposing an alternative to raising taxes so money is freed up to pay teachers more. There’s a lot of money sloshing around in public education, and school boards and administrators do a disservice when they cry poor and slander patrons as not caring.

    2. Anonymous

      Do you really think they are proud of that? I think you’re full of beans when you make that statement. Unless you have facts to back up such a goofy statement, please refrain as it makes you look like an angry, unintelligent person.

  5. anon1

    Great plan…screw up South Dakota’s retirement system. This is exactly the way that so many pension funds in the country go broke. Terrible leadership from the House.

  6. Noddy Holder

    This silly, spaghetti-on-the-wall idea has just barely enough juice to it to get it some committee hang time and then all the Me-2s will bale on the Governor’s idea. After all, this is an election year. Jeez, the State would be better off if we were to go back to a biennial legislature so crazy stuff like this and potty patrol bills only need to be heard every other year.