Who’s solving problems in Pierre? Democrats.
Economist and Senator Reynold Nesiba (D-15/Sioux Falls) offers Senate Bill 96, which would lift South Dakota’s ban on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) benefits to folks with felony drug convictions. Only nine states still ban such aid to families with a drug felon. That ban was a misdirected effort to deter drug use. Harvard research indicates that access to public assistance like TANF may reduce the risk of a felon returning to prison in the first year out by up to 10%… meaning that reinstating drug felon’s TANF eligibility could save us money on prisons.
Senator Nesiba took SB 96 to Senate Judiciary Tuesday and found his Republican colleagues receptive to the possibility of saving money:
“Because every person we keep out of the system, or help get out of the system for one or two months, we’re going to make more money back every single year by passing this, than we do with it in place, and that’s why I’m supporting it,” [Senator Lee] Schoenbeck said.
Senator Rocky Blare, an Ideal Republican, called for the committee’s endorsement for a more straight-forward reason at a time when state government is shorter than normal on tax revenue.
“We can’t fund everything. but we want to efficiently use that money to foster success. I think this is the most efficient use of money that I’ve seen we’ve used to foster success this year,” Blare said [Bob Mercer, “South Dakota Lawmakers Expect to Save Money If They Drop TANF Ban for Drug Felonies,” KELO-TV, 2020.02.18].
No one testified against SB 96, and Senate Judiciary passed it 6–1, with the only dissent from Chairman Lance Russell. Senator Nesiba asked for a fiscal note on the Senate floor yesterday, so the LRC will guesstimate numbers to help the Senator make his case to the full Senate shortly.
Senate Bill 96 is a great counterexample to the baloney Republicans say about our party. Democrats aren’t out to spend more; a bill like Senate Bill 96 that looks like a liberal spending bill may actually turn out to be a liberal saving bill, as we make smart investments that spare us larger costs.
Ask any Republican if deciding NOT to spend on maintaining their home today will assure they don’t have to pay MORE in 10 years. Or, if deciding NOT to overhaul their tractor engine this winter will result in it bein reliable all the way through harvest next Fall. They know how to think about long-term consequences of immediate actions, but tend to turn a blind eye to that notion when it comes to taxes and government. Who taught them that?
Richard, is it because with term limits, legislators only have short-term outlooks? They will not be there when the long-term bill comes due?
Liberals are very good at long term savings bills. GOP likes short term not spending bills that become very long term costing bills. Senator Reynold Nesiba (D-15/Sioux Falls), illustrates liberal INVESTING very well.
I think if we analyzed many of this year’s GOP bills we would see that they are Long Term Costing Bills.
•Their decision not to honor their law to raise teacher pay is going to cost SD.
•Their choices to create a variety of 2nd class citizens through various social attacks is going to cost SD.
•Their decisions to ignore threatening environmental issues will cost SD.
•Their decision to remove citizen input from CAFO siting is going to cost SD.
•Their ongoing tax idiocy that limits schools is going to cost SD.
I could go on and on. SD’s Democrats look to the future of the state and plan for a big and bright one. The SDGOP looks backward for short term results.
They’re like a small child that craves immediate gratification, rather than the Democrats who are the mature adult willing to work hard and save for a better future.
Democrats buy cars they can afford; Republicans lease big gas-guzzlers, which means the payments never end.