In 1995 my State Senate seatmate, Donn Larson, tried to repeal the sales tax on food. I was designated by our Majority Leader (believe it or not Democrats were in the majority in the South Dakota State Senate for four years in the 1990’s) to go with Senator Larson to Governor Janklow’s office to pitch the idea that sales tax on food was a tax on existence and one that made nutritious foods that were already relatively expensive, fruits and vegetables for example, a less attractive choice for consumers than they otherwise should be.
Governor Janklow ripped Donn Larson for this compassionate policy proposal. The Governor had two arguments; one, the State had no income tax so a stable sales tax on something people couldn’t avoid buying was vital and two, a Marie Antoinette version of “Let them eat cake” response. Now Governor Kristi Noem has promised to repeal the sales tax on food, should she be reelected. That would be good news if it weren’t so farcically hypocritical.
Democrats have been trying, on and off, for thirty years to repeal the sales tax on food and Republicans – including four Republican governors – haven’t been interested. Governor Noem herself has had the four previous years to do what 43 states already have done, and that is exempt food from sales tax. This out of the blue, one-eighty flip flop in position by Governor Noem is welcome but let’s recognize it for what it is, a nakedly political tax cutting campaign promise and one that will be easily thwarted by her allies behind the scenes in the legislature should she get reelected. Regardless of how “Johnny come lately” and opportunistic it is, it’s a tax cutting position that will further solidify her standing with national presidential Republican primary voters.
Republicans have made hay for years, both here in South Dakota and nationally, by bashing the poor. Their suggestion is poor people are lazy frauds, deliberately scamming the system living on the government dole while the rest of us work hard. There is some fraud of course, as there is in everything in life whether run by the government or not. However, the vast majority of those on public assistance – especially in South Dakota – fall into three broad categories: the very young, the very old and the working poor.
The very young are covered under Medicaid by the Children’s Health Insurance Program, CHIPs for short. The very old go through their personal savings and then are maintained by Medicaid in nursing homes across South Dakota. The working poor qualify for Medicaid if their income is below a certain threshold.
Medicaid is the program for the poor not to be confused with Medicare, the health care insurance program for the over sixty-fives. There are several programs to aid poorer folks, programs like heating assistance and “food stamps” (although these programs go by other names and acronyms now) but Medicaid is for health care. No one is denied medical care in this country. People often decry “socialized medicine” and vow never to allow it in the United States suggesting that something like the National Health Service in Britain would be unacceptable here, but we do have socialized medicine in the United States. It’s just a horse of a different color.
Most of us have health insurance of some sort, either provided in partnership with our employer or purchased privately through an insurance agent. For the very poor there is Medicaid. To be eligible for Medicaid in South Dakota the maximum yearly income an individual may have is $7,440 and for a family of four it is $12,012. Amendment D is on the ballot in South Dakota. That would expand Medicaid eligibility to 133% of the federal poverty level which would include individuals making up to $17,774 a year and for a family of four $36,570 would be the limit for qualifying.
At first glance that seems like a big jump. However, we are already paying for those “gap” people now – people too “rich” for Medicaid but too poor to pay for insurance. We pay it in county poor relief when an indigent person, one who is poor but who makes too much money to qualify for Medicaid, can’t pay their bill or the rest of us pay in our higher insurance rates when hospitals and medical providers “eat” the loss and make it up by charging more to those of us with insurance. Amendment D will have a positive impact, in part by encouraging people to work and get a better job, one that gives them more income than current Medicaid eligibility allows but still will allow them to have a potential Medicaid health insurance safety net for their family should they need it.
Republicans are against Amendment D because bashing the poor is popular with the hard right Republican presidential primary voters even though Amendment D is an idea that encourages work and those less well-off folks to get onto a more solid path of self-reliance. People I know that have been on public assistance of one kind or another have done so out of desperation, concern for their children and only temporarily before they have gotten off of “welfare” as quickly as possible. The idea that Americans like being poor and want to stay that way is ludicrous. Amendment D will cost some money, costs that the federal government will share. The question for South Dakotans is simply, do we want to pay the entire burden all by ourselves as we currently do – through our property taxes, county poor relief and higher insurance premiums or do we want to pay with the help of others via federal assistance with an expanded Medicaid program?
I laughed out loud during the gubernatorial debate when Governor Noem said she would “respect the will of the people” when it came to the marijuana vote. Now I want to be clear, I do think the legalization of marijuana is a terrible idea. I wrote a Mel’s Musings a while back about all the dangers and consequences that have emerged in states that have already enacted this horrible legalization legislation causing a rise in schizophrenia among young people, a drop of productivity at work along with more workplace injuries, an increase in DUI drug related accidents, all without much – if any – reduction in drug related crime. I agreed with Governor Noem’s earlier stance of opposition to legalization. However, after challenging the previous measure in court and doing everything in her power as Governor to thwart the former vote that expressed the will of the people in favor of marijuana legalization on a prior ballot issue, this latest promise to “respect the will of the people” rings hollow and smells of either political opportunism or desperation.
Governor Noem’s position on abortion is cruel and extreme. It’s one thing to want to protect prenatal life, it’s another to deny others their rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in favor of the unborn regardless of the circumstances of conception. Governor Noem is in favor of banning all abortions except in cases where the physical life of the mother is in jeopardy. Why should a raped woman and her family bear the emotional trauma, physical changes of pregnancy, the financial burden and social stigma in order to give birth to a rapist’s child? Why should a child, the victim of incest, be forced to bear her own brother/sister/cousin? There are women who desperately want a child but as the pregnancy progresses there are circumstances, deadly birth defects, late term genetic revelations and other conditions that may mean – no matter how much the unborn child is wanted and loved – a termination may be necessary. Governor Noem’s position doesn’t reflect the complicated reality that modern life is. Her stance on abortion is simply more red meat for the presidential primaries she hopes to prevail in during the next presidential nomination cycle.
We all know Governor Noem harbors presidential ambitions. She has been on Fox News more often than she has been on KELO TV. She has been to places out-of-state that no Governor of South Dakota has any business being, unless of course that Governor is running for president. She has used state planes and state funding for these trips. Even Saturday Night Live has taken notice and recently parodied her attempts to control people’s lives and take their rights away, something SNL doesn’t do unless the person being parodied has done something ridiculous or is politically prominent or both.
It’s fine to have ambition. It’s natural to want to move up. The reality is South Dakota needs a full-time governor dedicated to serving us, rather than her own lofty political ambitions, pursuing policies that make our lives better rather than promoting those that are merely designed to improve her chances with presidential primary voters.