Some things in South Dakota still need a lot of debate

Gordon Garnos

AT ISSUE: There are times when there is so much going on in South Dakota it is hard to determine which should be debated first. Health care reform is certainly a “hot button” issue now, but so is the smoking ban question. At the same time we can’t forget the Supreme Court’s ruling on the school funding lawsuit. Nor can we forget about the debate about higher ethanol blends that are being promoted in South Dakota. Altogether, they spell a lot for a this-n-that column.

HEALTH CARE REFORM
A READER ASKED after last week’s column about health care reform what was the breakdown of those 85,000 South Dakotans without health insurance? The Kaiser Family Foundation provided the number of uninsured South Dakotans and while a further breakdown wasn¹t available the foundation had this to say, “As is the case nationwide, the uninsured rate is particularly high (in South Dakota) among poor adults who don’t qualify for Medicaid and aren’t old enough for Medicare.”

The foundation also noted that 11 percent of South Dakotans are uninsured, which ranks South Dakota 37th among all the states and the District of Columbia for its rate of the uninsured.

It appears that the President’s health care reform bill is going through no matter how much criticism is being put forth. This is extremely unfortunate especially for the elderly as they may be getting a bad deal all around as their health care may be rationed. But more on that later.

SMOKING BAN
South Dakotans are waiting for the judge’s decision on whether or not the expanded smoking ban should take effect or whether it should go to a state-wide vote in the November 2010 General Election. In other words, while we wait the ban is somewhere in limbo.

There is a gap (loophole) that is the key to the overall question of the petition drive and the counting of just five percent of the petition signers, which the state now uses.

The referendum petition’s original four circulators are now demanding a court order requiring our Secretary of State to put the ban on the 2010 ballot.

I must say here that in my judgment the legal squabble only delays the day when South Dakota will be smoke free. While the opponents argue they should have the right to determine whether or not there is smoking in their businesses, their real intention is they are afraid of losing business. But I remind them that one goes into a bar for a drink and not necessarily to smoke.

SCHOOL FUNDING
South Dakota’s two top leaders, Governor Rounds and Lt. Governor Daugaard, are upset by the recent unanimous Supreme Court decision that decided school districts in the state can sue the state government over the school funding case that has been boiling for so long.

As you recall, several school districts banded together and sued state government because, as they said, it was not living up to its responsibilities in financing our schools. The basic question in this case was whether school districts had legal standing to sue.

The South Dakota Supreme Court found that school districts are a separate part of government established by the State Constitution. The Constitution established that the Legislature and state officials serve in a “trustee role” to provide funding to school districts. The Supreme Court banked on the precedent set in a 1895 Supreme Court decision.

Judge Lorie Wilbur originally said the districts didn’t have that standing and therefore public funds (those taxes paid to the school districts) couldn’t be used to finance the school-funded lawsuit. The Supreme Court has now overruled her decision.

For one thing, that’s good. Otherwise there would have been a lot of school board members who were going to have to dig into their own pockets to pay the lawyers’ fees as well as any other expenses occurring in the lawsuit. One could also watch for more such lawsuits.

ETHANOL BLENDS
The debate continues on whether or not E10, which is used by most vehicles using ethanol, should be increased to E15, meaning bumping up E10 another five percent thus further cutting the need to rely on foreign oil.

I have used E10 consistently since it came on the South Dakota market. At the same time I have tried not to get involved in some of the technical stuff about losing miles-per-gallon, etc. By and large I have been well satisfied using this product and if the argument increases the ethanol to E15 I’ll more than likely switch.

At the same time, there is a legitimate argument regarding vehicles’ warranties being worthless when one blends gasoline with ethanol. If there is a loss of gas mileage with ethanol, personally I feel better knowing that it is a South Dakota product going through my gas tank and a couple of miles difference isn’t going to break me.

As I said, right now there is a lot of this-n-that going on in South Dakota and a few little arguments shouldn’t hurt any of us. However, what we need to do (all of us) is to keep up with them….

Gordon Garnos was long-time editor of the Watertown Public Opinion, retiring after 39 years with that newspaper. Garnos, a lifelong resident of South Dakota except for his military service in the U.S. Air Force, was born and raised in Presho.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.