Press "Enter" to skip to content

I-229 Billboard Notes Kristi Noem’s Preference for Millionaires over Medicare

This is much more fun than speeding tickets.

Democratic candidate for U.S. House Matt Varilek posts a booster's photo from I-229 (hey, kids: keep your hands on the wheel, let your passengers take the photos!):

MillionairesOverMedicare.com Billboard, Sioux Falls, SD

MillionairesOverMedicare.com notes (and every voter in South Dakota should note) that Kristi Noem's vote last year to voucherize Medicare was no fluke; Noem, Paul Ryan, and her GOP colleagues really want to get rid of Medicare. Ryan doubled down on his plan from last year to slash Medicare, Medicaid, and the rest of our social safety net while handing over a quarter-million dollars to each person making over a million bucks, and Rep. Noem dutifully voted for it.

Votes like that for the 1% are why Democrats can beat Kristi Noem this November.

Related: For those of you of the opposite political persuasion who think Rep. Noem's budget-hawkery deserves praise, consider this: The Ryan budget she supports wouldn't balance the budget until 2040. Noem voted against an amendment by New Jersey Rep. Scott Jordan that would have balanced the budget by 2017. Noem isn't really interested in balancing the budget: she just wants to pad the rich and whack the rest of us.

Update 06:31 MDT: But in good news, Kristi Noem's mere occupation of South Dakota's lone House seat is boosting our score on iVillage's scorecard of best and worst states for women. Thanks to Kristi's empowerment, we manage to escape the bottom ten. Of course, without the attitudes that allow an empty suit like Noem to get elected, South Dakota women would fare much better.

Update 20:12 MDT: Let me be Frank... Barney Frank: Rep. Ryan's budget is a "great scam," says the retiring Congressman from Massachusetts:

"It's not deficit reduction when you increase military spending so that you can make up for that by cutting Medicare and Medicaid. That's not budget reduction. That's ideology. That's the right wing," Frank told TPM. "The other great scam for Ryan is to say, "˜Oh, I'm not going to help the rich people ... I'm going to lower their rates and get rid of loopholes,' although he doesn't mention a single loophole that he'll get rid of" [Sahil Kapur, "Barney Frank Unloads on the 'Great Scam' of Paul Ryan," Talking Points Memo, 2012.04.12].

34 Comments

  1. PrairieLady 2012.04.13

    I got to get out more! That's nearly in my backyard. When I take the dog out I will have to look over there. Yup, got to get out more.

  2. Troy 2012.04.13

    Btw, think we might see a budget from Obama that gets more than a few votes? 1e have had three years without a budget since the 1970's when the budget Act was passed. All under Obama.

  3. Bill Fleming 2012.04.13

    Obama has submitted budgets, Troy.

  4. Nick Nemec 2012.04.13

    Bill, don't ruin the talking points.

    Lather, rinse, repeat.

  5. Carter 2012.04.13

    No, no. I think this is a great idea. It will increase our per-capita income! Poor people die sooner, so we're left with just the rich ones. Bam. Poverty solved.

    And right wingers can criticize Obama all they want. Let's face it, he's basically a less-extreme right-wing president. His failed policies are a bigger sign that being extremely right-wing is a bad idea than the fun "I think this is still the Cold War" ranters would have you believe.

  6. Rorschach 2012.04.13

    Rep. Noem has sent at least 2 pieces of franked mail to my elderly grandmother talking about how the Republicans are protecting Medicare. Those mailings would be far less persuasive if they included facts about the Ryan/Noem plan to voucherize medicare and stick the next generation of seniors with the difference in cost between the voucher and the actual charges. It's not about putting facts out there though, it's about using taxpayer money to send mailings that get votes. I think they ought to do away with the franking privilege entirely in this day of 24 hour news coverage and e-mail.

  7. Jana 2012.04.13

    So is there any chance that a constituent or reporter will be able to question Kristi at length on her views on the details of the Ryan plan and it's assumptions and impacts.

    Cory, maybe we should come up with a list of questions that would give Kristi a chance to show that she is a Representative of substance that isn't tethered to bumper sticker platitudes.

    Although I'm thinking that she is totally ready for this Colbertesque question:

    "Is the Ryan budget plan a great budget plan - or the greatest budget plan ever?"

  8. PrairieLady 2012.04.13

    It is not there....must be the other side of the billboard. My side is LLS and talking about adoption. Interestinng LSS and the Alpha Center are right next door to each other.

  9. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.04.13

    Jana, I don't have much faith in Noem's ability to have a serious, straight-up policy conversation. But I would love to ask some very simple questions, like why America can't find the wealth to maintain the Medicare guarantee for all senior citizens, current and future.

  10. larry kurtz 2012.04.14

    Gawd, Republicans are out-to-lunch....

  11. Troy Jones 2012.04.15

    Larry, that is funny coming from you. :)

    And hilarious Varilek considers this serious conversation.

    Buffet rule:$4 billion a year.

    Obama deficit:. $1 trillion.

    In other words, Buffet rule doesn't cover two days of Obama's deficit.

    You want a big government, you need to be honest and call for an increase in taxation of the middle class. Until then, everything you say is baloney.

  12. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.04.15

    [Thank you, Larry, for the pine beetle legislation links!]

  13. Carter 2012.04.15

    Troy, the Buffett Rule is barely an attempt to close the income gap, let alone touch the deficit. It's a meek, timid approach, and even so Obama barely takes the offensive with it.

    You want to see a real deficit fix? Tax the top 1% more than 30%. 45%? 50%? More? If they want to pay themselves 225 times more than the US average, they shouldn't complain when they get taxed 225 times more than the US average.

  14. Bill Fleming 2012.04.15

    Troy and Carter, wrong. The Buffet Rule AND the elimination of the Bush Tax Cuts will do it, gentlemen. The latter doesn't even require legislation. It's a done deal, good to go. The former requires capitalists having a conscience ;^)

  15. Carter 2012.04.15

    Actually, yeah. Or at least it would come pretty close. But then we need to account for further accumulation of debt during that period (10ish years, I believe it would take). I suppose cutting our defense budget to something resembling that of any other nation in the world would do the trick (I'd still like to keep the 45% on the top 1%, for social spending, though).

    Good call on that one, Bill.

  16. Troy Jones 2012.04.15

    LOL

    If all this spending is good,why don't you propose taxing yourselves? My willingness to fund government stops when I stop being willing to pay for it. I would be more open to it if you were willing to put up. Your envy, covetousness, and greed is palpable.

  17. Carter 2012.04.15

    Oh, I'm very willing to pay more taxes. I just think the super-rich should pay MORE more taxes than the average people. My <$20,000/year money is mostly taken up by rent/food. The average income earner needs most of their money for survival. You don't need $1,000,000/year for survival, unless your survival mandates six houses and a dozen yachts. More money, more taxes.

    Aside: I'd be even more willing to pay more taxes if I knew it wasn't going towards firing missiles at Middle Eastern shepherds.

  18. Troy Jones 2012.04.15

    LOL..

    So why are you so special to not pay taxes because you don't like what is spent on but others have to put up with no choice.

    Don't you find a disconnect that 30% of adults pay more in cell phones, cable, and Internet than they do in federal taxes.

  19. Carter 2012.04.15

    Didn't I just say I'm willing to pay more taxes? I willingly pay my taxes every year, despite what the money is going towards. I'm not happy about what it's going towards, but I do it anyway. I just wish it was going towards a better cause.

    To your second point: Yes, but there's two sides to that coin. Our tax rates are outstandingly low, which could definitely change, but at the same time, cell phones and Internet costs are outrageously high. They both need government mandates on affordability and coverage because they (especially the internet) are essential in modern Western countries.

    So (especially for internet, again), people can't be expected to NOT have internet if they have a low income. The internet is a knowledge database, and knowledge shouldn't be a privilege afforded to the wealthy.

    Anyway, that's more ideological than I intended to get, and more tangential. Summary: People should be taxed more. I would be happier if tax money didn't go senseless violence. The internet should be more affordable.

    Sorry for rambling.

  20. Jana 2012.04.15

    Good point on the disconnects Troy.

    There might be some that don't share your belief that $5 billion is such a trivial amount that we should continue to play favorites with the tax rates. Heck there is probably more that don't think throwing it on the back of the middle class is exactly a part of an honest discussion and rather a false choice argument.

    Of course perpetuating the myth that only the rich pay taxes is more than a little dishonest.

    I also see a disconnect with the man who wants to be President hiding money in foreign banks to avoid his duty as an American citizen.

    Then of course there is the disconnect that since it's only $5 billion that we just ignore what reasonable people would call fairness...or even look at a greater good that those $5 billion could go towards investing in innovation that moves our country forward. Just think what an impact turning that $5 billion into $10 could do.

    I also see a disconnect in the Romney/Ryan/Republican plan throwing the whole load on the middle class, children, seniors and the poor when the leaders of the pentagon have pointed out and agree where many cuts could take place. Oh yeah and then at the same time giving even deeper cuts to those at the top.

    Another disconnect I see is the fealty that Republicans have pledged to the unelected blackmailer Grover Norquist that makes any Reagan-like solution to the budget a non starter.

    A little closer to the comments here on the blog, I see a disconnect from what Carter has posted and your ad hominem accusation that he is greedy, envious and covetous.

  21. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.04.15

    You're not rambling, Carter... you're just wrassling with a counterpart who likes to deflect policy criticism by turning you into the bad guy (which Jana astutely points out).

    Add up all taxes (federal, state, and local, including our favored sales tax), and you'll find fewer people paying more for phone, cable, and Web than in total taxes. But at least on cell phone and Internet, I'm not going to begrudge low-income people their access to the basic 21st-century information utilities they need to get education and jobs.

  22. Troy Jones 2012.04.15

    I think 35% is too high for anyone to pay. And, despite all your talk of fairness, you couldn't care less if it just means there are more poor people. These people making this kind of people are innovating us all to a better standard of living.

    I am not deflecting. I think you all have an unhealthy level of envy and covetousness.

  23. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.04.15

    35% wasn't too high a marginal rate to pay back in the 1950s, was it? And it's hard to make a universal principle based on a percentage when percentages have very different practical meanings for different people. Take 35% of an EMT's income, and he's broke. Take 35% of Mitt Romney's income, and he maybe has to sell one of his houses.

  24. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.04.15

    ...which is the principle behind the critique of Noem's budget votes. Her and Ryan's cuts hit the poor much harder than they hit the rich.

  25. Carter 2012.04.15

    Now that I've had a chance to look into it, a very brief (and thus probably only marginally accurate) Google search tells me the average American citizen spends something like 55%-60% of their income on taxes (including sales tax, etc.). Since that's a majority of their money, they cannot possibly spend more on TV+Internet+Phone (even with DirecTV).

    Furthermore, the average income is (off the top of my head), somewhere in the $35,000/year range. 25% of that is taxed by the federal government. That's $8750. Just wildly grabbing numbers, TV+Internet+Phone might cost $200 a month, over 12 months, that's only $2400 (I think $200/month is higher than average. I could be wrong. Feel free to correct me, but it doesn't matter at all, since Internet+TV+Phone would need to cost $729/month to even match taxes).

    So, sorry Troy. I can guarantee that there has never been a single person who has paid more in TV+Internet+Phone than they have in taxes (excluding people in the No Taxes tax bracket, but if you're going to start calling them out, I think the problem might lie elsewhere...).

    Once again, feel free to correct my numbers. None of them are particularly well researched. But I promise it won't change the outcome.

    Thanks for the support, Jana and Cory.

  26. Carter 2012.04.15

    Troy, the point of progressive taxes (and closing the income gap, and "redistributing wealth" as it is unfortunately known) is to make FEWER poor people. Like Cory said, 35% isn't going to make ol' Mitt hurt for money (I doubt he'd even have to sell a house). But anyone making less than triple digits would be hurting. I'd even venture to say that anyone making less than $150,000 would be hurting from 35%, depending on where they live.

    Once your monetary concern go from "How am I going to feed my family and keep them warm" or even "How am I going to afford to buy my kids some nice things and go to the movies once in a while" to "How am I going to afford a Lamborghini in all the garages of my five beach-front houses", I think you need to stop complaining.

    I'd dare say that most people with lots of money are not, in fact, innovating us a better standard of living. Bill Gates? Sure. Steve Jobs? I guess so. Bankers? Futures traders? I'm not sure "Stealing money from the less-well-off to spend on gold pen cases" is what I would call "Innovating us a better standard of living".

  27. Troy Jones 2012.04.15

    Carter, your numbers are wrong. In 2009, 47% of Americans paid no income taxes.

    While you say you goal is to have fewer poor people, all of your arguments are about your idea of "fairness." You never hear an economic argument it will make the poor better off because it doesn't exist. Obama didn't once when touting the Buffet rule say anything about jobs or growth. Only envy about sticking it to the rich.

    One thing I am sure of I'd you have never owned a business, risked everything and had people's livelihood depend on your decisions. Yet, you have no problem taxing the incentive out of them.

    The amazing this is not we have 8.5% unemployment. It is a wonderful we have any employment except government workers. You do not have a clue.

  28. Carter 2012.04.15

    Are you really saying that the bad part about "47% of Americans paid no income tax" is that tax money wasn't going into the system? I'm much more concerned that 47% of Americans didn't make $10,000...

    And hey! We've tried the "Lets cut taxes on the rich" thing back, when was it? Oh right, the mid 2000s. I'm pretty sure there was some kind of economic event in the late 2000s that involved job loss, even with the tax cuts. If I could only remember what it was...

    Increasing taxes on the rich is unlikely to have much effect on hiring. In fact, if you look at the numbers, the most highly taxed nations tend to be the most successful ones, at the moment. Norway and Luxemburg (as usual, off the top of my head) both have higher taxes, a much smaller income gap, and a higher per capita GDP than us. Also, Norway is as pink as Pepto Bismol, so there's that...).

  29. Jana 2012.04.15

    Cory, saying that …Her and Ryan’s cuts hit the poor much harder than they hit the rich...is a little inaccurate. The rich actually get a bigger tax break.

    To be fair, they do say they will close some loopholes...but haven't seen fit or had the courage to say which ones they would close.

  30. caheidelberger Post author | 2012.04.15

    Point taken. If I were Noem's speechwriter, I'd refer to the tax breaks for the rich as "negative cuts."

  31. Jana 2012.04.15

    Speaking of Buffett...not Warren...Jimmy. I think Kristi does a fine job of being a 'Parrot Head' for the popular platitudes she's told to preach.

  32. Taunia 2012.04.15

    So when Kristi is campaigning for Mitt, she's going to make Mitt and Ann seem just like you and me in our second homes, while discussing how to the make the Department of Education a skeleton department, while sipping mimosas.

    "I'm going to probably eliminate for high-income people the second-home mortgage deduction," Mr. Romney told supporters at the event Sunday.

    http://tinyurl.com/7g9t34m

    And not one clue how to pay for the sound bites. Oh vey.

Comments are closed.