Excerpts From Recent South Dakota Editorials
Editors: Please note that The Associated Press welcomes editorial contributions from members for the weekly Editorial Roundup. Three editorials are selected every week. Contributions can be made by email at [email protected].
___
Argus Leader, Pierre, Feb. 8, 2015
Public should see food stamp totals
This government program has everything it needs to attract widespread public attention:
— A huge tax-funded budget
— Wide potential for fraud and abuse
— Needy children’s well-being on the line.
So, when the program’s administrators insist on secrecy, it’s not surprising that people object.
We’re talking about the federal government’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) also known as the food stamp program. And until recently, the USDA, the department administering the program, has seemed oblivious to the need to inform the public on how much money is spent where and on what food products.
Forget trying to see how many potato chips and energy drinks were purchased versus apples and bananas. That information isn’t available.
USDA won’t even release the total dollars spent at individual stores. In fact, almost none of the pertinent information related to this $73.7 billion federal program is available for public review.
The Argus Leader has been battling in federal court for release of important food stamp spending information for more than three years. We are asking for the amount of money paid to each grocery store, gas station and big box store that is licensed to accept food stamps.
The totals hopefully may shed light on where food stamp money is being spent in this state and others. It could lead to a discussion of what nutritional food options are offered for participants, particularly in rural areas, and even potentially could indicate fraud in usage.
A federal court of appeals panel has decided in favor of the Argus Leader’s request for this information, yet the USDA continues its fight. Last month the federal court battle entered its third round, as the USDA now turns to new arguments in its effort to keep SNAP records closed.
Ours certainly is not the only voice calling for release of food stamp data. In recent years, Congressional leaders and nutrition advocacy groups also have pushed for information to see if the federally funded program is being administered in the best way possible to encourage healthy food choices and to prevent fraud.
Perhaps due in part to these efforts, the USDA last week announced that it would release a pair of surveys focusing on what participants in the SNAP program buy.
The USDA has been studying whether data from participants’ electronic benefit transfer cards can be collected and if point-of-sale food buys using the cards differ from typical purchases made by non-SNAP participants.
These studies are encouraging first steps but come nowhere near the transparency that should be demanded of this program and its administrators.
The USDA has a responsibility to taxpayers to be open in reporting how federal food stamp money is spent. There also should be regular reviews of program procedures and routine accounting of vendors and participants — all made available to the public.
There simply is no practical reason for this important information to remain hidden.
___
Yankton Daily Press and Dakotan, Yankton, Feb. 10, 2015
A question of dubious timing
Sometimes, the problem with a piece of legislation is not so much the content but the timing.
This can succinctly describe South Dakota House Bill 1176, widely known as the “Daschle bill.”
The aim of this bill is to repeal a law that the Republican-dominated Legislature passed in 2002 to throw a monkey wrench into the political calculations of then-Sen. Tom Daschle. At the time, the South Dakota Democrat and Senate majority leader was rumored to be interested in a presidential run in 2004, which also happened to be the year he was next up for re-election to the U.S. Senate. So, the GOP pushed through a bill declaring that an individual could not do both — which is why it’s called the “Daschle bill.” As it turned out, Daschle didn’t run for president. He ran for re-election and lost to John Thune.
Now, Thune is rumored to be considering a presidential run in 2016, which also happens to be when he is up for re-election.
And suddenly, the “Daschle bill” is a bad idea, so much so that it needs repealing.
In fact, House GOP leader Brian Gosch of Rapid City even apologized for the 2002 legislation, calling it “bad legislation.” He said that on the House floor just before the largely Republican body overwhelmingly approved HB1176. The vote was 50-17, with all the “yes” votes being Republican. Six Republicans voted with 11 Democrats to oppose the change.
The thing is, whether or not the rule that was passed in 2002 — for whatever reason — was a good idea or a bad idea would actually make for an interesting discussion in a political vacuum. Both sides of the argument have their justifications and drawbacks. And frankly, we could live with either one in place.
But HB1176 isn’t about that discussion, and it surely isn’t being considered in a political vacuum.
The timing is blatantly obvious and brazenly political.
“That’s smarmy to me. I’ll vote for this in 2017,” stated Rep. Steve Hickey, a Republican from Sioux Falls who voted against HB1176. “This is a tactics deal . I see ruthlessness in this bill.”
In a way, whether or not the measure should pass in the Senate and become law is almost a moot point.
Laws aren’t designed to be tinkered with to fit the political whims or agendas of a particular moment or election cycle. That’s precisely what laws aren’t supposed to do.
And it’s the kind of thing our lawmakers shouldn’t be engaging in at any time.
Unfortunately, the fact that they do is no surprise at all.
Perhaps someone in Pierre should be apologizing for that, too.
___
The Daily Republic, Mitchel, Feb. 10, 2015
$3 million interesting figure for fine arts center naming rights
Anyone looking to buy naming rights for a fine arts center?
The Mitchell School District is selling just that. The cost to have your name on the building: $3 million.
The planned $13.5 million fine arts center has raised plenty of discussion in the community. Obviously those parents whose children are involved with music, plays, debate and speech and other fine arts programs and the school’s alumni are typically excited about the facility.
Some have raised concerns about the school district spending $13.5 million of taxpayer funds on this facility without it going to a public vote. That’s allowed because the cost of the building falls within the district’s window to use capital outlay funds up to 1.5 percent of the district’s taxable valuation.
In 2014, the Mitchell district’s total valuation was $1.09 billion, meaning the school can issue up to about $16.4 million in capital outlay certificates without needing a public vote.
Ultimately, we’re glad this project has taken off.
But we wonder what determined the $3 million figure for naming rights.
It’s clear that the theater at the high school is insufficient. Because that’s the case, we believe the district should start fresh and build a brand new fine arts facility. And bravo to a committee for looking at ways to ease the tax burden and give interested parties the chance to invest in their communities.
But our first reaction to $3 million naming rights was surprise. Is that expecting too much? We weren’t sure. By our calculations, $3 million is 22 percent of the building’s estimated cost, before interest.
In Sioux Falls, the recently completed Denny Sanford Premier Center came with a $117 million price tag. The naming rights deal with Sanford Health and First Premier totals $20 million for 25 years for the facility. That’s about 17 percent of the total project. Just like the proposed fine arts center, some in the Sioux Falls community decried the facility as unnecessary, and too much.
In the past few months, it has brought in big-name entertainers. We hope the fine arts center sees a similar return on investment, albeit in a different way.
Mitchell Superintendent Joe Graves last week said about $130,000 has already been raised in private donations for the fine arts center. That’s about 1 percent of the total cost of the facility.
Maybe there’s a person, a business or a group out there who’s willing to pay $3 million.
We’re proud to live in a community in which many have already pledged thousands of dollars toward the planned fine arts center.
We hope that effort continues, and we hope the $3 million price tag for naming rights was right on the money.
So is $3 million for naming rights shooting for the stars? Maybe.
We’ll find out in the coming months.
