Last updated on 2013.07.14
Even before Donald Pay broke the news that South Dakota may be angling for a nuclear waste dump, South Dakota ex-pat Joe Loveland wrote this funny, sharp rejection of Governor Dennis Daugaard's Minnesotan recruiting pitch.
Loveland acknowledges the appeal of South Dakota's breathtaking beauty and populist culture. But he says that appeal doesn't overcome the substandard public services that concomit to our low-tax regime. With linkful precision, Loveland highlights Minnesota's lower rate of uninsured citizens, higher teacher pay, and greater investment in education from pre-kindergarten upward.
Loveland ties it all together to explain why South Dakota's sales pitch will strike out with most Minnesotans:
Because of these kinds of public investments, I pay higher taxes than I would in South Dakota. I am fully aware that I could move to South Dakota to cut my tax bill. But I understand that you get what you pay for in life, so I’m willing to join with my neighbors to invest what it takes to build a healthy, fair and well-educated state for my kids and grandkids.
It may be tempting for you to write me off as a loony liberal aberration. I am a loony liberal, but in Minnesota, I’m no aberration. Research shows that the majority of the Minnesotans you seek to lure to South Dakota support investing in strong community services for our most vulnerable neighbors. For instance, a survey recently found that only 8% of Minnesotans support making state budget cuts in health care for low-income, disabled and elderly Minnesotans a high priority. So, your refusal to cover 48,564 more South Dakotans doesn’t sell very well with more than 90% of Minnesotans.
In addition, research shows that a majority of Minnesotans support requiring wealthy citizens to pay more in income taxes. So, your insistence on maintaining one of the most millionaire-friendly regressive tax systems in the nation is also not a selling point in Minnesota [Joe Loveland, "South Dakota Guv’s Fiscal Race-to-the Bottom Not A Selling Point for Minnesotans With Dakota Roots," Wry Wing Politics, 2013.06.12].
Don't get defensive, South Dakota. Loveland isn't sending hate mail. He's sending a rational critique and calling on the land of his youth to do better. If we paid attention to Loveland's critique, South Dakota wouldn't need to pay for a kiosk at the Mall of America or a state-subsidized headhunter to bring South Dakotans back to make their fortunes in the land we love.
Related: But watch out, Joe: U.S. Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board chairman B. John Garrick appears to favor "eastern North Dakota, and a little bit of Minnesota" as a site for storing nuclear waste.
http://mix97-3.com/new-study-says-its-cheaper-to-live-in-south-dakota/
That's a load of crap and you know it. It's not just the taxes. SD is cheaper and we had the highest income growth percentage.
South Dakota is not cheaper. Check out the prices for food and other consumable items. They are the exact same price here as any other place. In fact if you go online you might be able to but some stuff cheaper and get free delivery too.
Plus the miles involved to get anyplace here in SD adds a gas surcharge to many of the things we have to do.
Items may be the same price but that's typical. Cars, food, gas, etc typically are pretty close BUT the cost of living is for a place to live. It is extremely cheaper when you compare SD to MN. Minneapolis area is way more expensive, who cares that it's a metropolitan area, and that is not going to change. Compare MN outside of the Cities and maybe home prices are similar but it's rural so then factor in taxes and it makes a big deal...and you have to drive in rural MN also. PLUS many communities in MN are by lakes and home prices are significant with recreation spots. Look at a lake cabin in SW Minnesota. Hate SD all you want but MN sucks compared to the other Upper Midwest states. There's a reason. You reap what you sow. I know you all want the social spending etc so just move there. We'll keep the conservatism here.
Wait a minute: housing prices are higher in Minnesota because they have more homes near lakes and recreation opportunities... and Minnesota sucks?
South Dakota's officially proferred cost-of-living data say we're at 98% of the national average, while MN is at 102%. Loveland appears to acknowledge that cost and accept it under the mantra of "you get what you pay for."
As I suggested in the post, James, you don't get to distract people from the main argument by saying Joe and I "hate" South Dakota. We love South Dakota, but we want South Dakota to do better.
Yes James, it appears you've missed the point of this piece and would rather pick a fight about which state is "better". Kind of like rooting for your favorite sports team. Not the point.
I think Joe was kind to SD, almost wistful but also straight with us. The basic idea is he believes we're better off together than alone which may mean a few more taxes and having to deal with each other honestly about what's going on.
I agree with him, the only difference is I've chosen to live in SD and I am not please with the priorities we've chosen.
Are Minnesotans healthier and better educated than the people of SD? I would be interested in seeing the data. That said, I have 6 children, all well educated (have or working on advanced degrees) and healthy. But so far none have chosen to live in SD. Very sad.
"you get what you pay for"
failing bridges, crappy roads, salt riddled vehicles, welfare haven, taxes that dwarf any gains on goods and services, and lets not forget....The Vikings
Good grief Mr. Snyder, don't put words in my mouth. I don't hate South Dakota. I'm a 6th generation South Dakotan and the 5th generation to live here in central South Dakota, my ancestors are original homesteaders and our family has have stuck it out while others moved on, I have cousins spread across the state from west to east. I have four adult daughters who all live in the state. Not only is my love of the state deep and profound, but I've passed that love on to my children.
But, I don't have my head in the sand so deep that I'm unable to see the flaws South Dakota has and work to correct them. So please don't call me a South Dakota hater. It does nothing to advance the debate.
You get what you pay for. Ask a graduate of University of Minnesota about her job prospects in the Twin Cities and ask a graduate of USD about her prospects in ... any where in South Dakota. And if you want to see insane airfare, fly in and out of the Rapid City airport.
Nick, you're right. If you refuse to acknowledge the disparity, you have zero chance of fixing it. This Alfred E. Neuman approach to governing has its own rewards.
Minnesota has a projected budget deficit in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The state owes local school districts a little less than $1 billion. They are increasing taxes to try to reduce the red ink. They have borrowed money to keep their spending up. Our constitution does not allow this.
A few considerations:
1) Re: "MN has a projected budget deficit...they have borrowed to keep their spending up"
Like SD, MN is not allowed to run deficits or borrow to cover operating expenses (they can bond for long-term capital needs). MN now is forecasting a surplus - http://politicsinminnesota.com/2012/02/forecast-minnesota-has-a-323-million-budget-surplus-for-biennium/
2) "SD is cheaper"
Yes, it is cheaper. But the teacher salaries were adjusted according to cost of living. As for health coverage, SD's cost-of-living is not so low that six- or seven-figure medical bills are affordable for the 48,000 South Dakotans Governor Daugaard has left uninsured.
http://www.teacherportal.com/salary-comfort-index
3) "We'll keep the conservatism here."
That is certainly SD's right. I'm not trying to tell SD how to govern itself. That's the voters' collective choice. I'm just pointing out that the data show that what sells for Governor Daugaard in Pierre does not sell very well for him in MN recruiting. Since Dakota Roots seeks MN migrants, the preference of MN citizens is relevant to the discussion. If you don't want to adjust to account for MN citizens' preferences, I'm just noting that will impact the success of the Dakota Roots recruiting.
4) Re: "Hate SD all you want"
My post reads: "There’s a lot of what you are selling that is attractive to me. I have treasured family and friends in South Dakota. I miss the expansive prairie skies framing breathtakingly beautiful fields of sunflowers or bison. I love many of the changes that have happened since I left Sioux Falls about 30 years ago, such as the Washington Pavillion, Parker’s Bistro, Josiah’s Coffee, Spezia, Zanbroz and the rejuvenated Falls Park. I admire the populist spirit of South Dakotans, and the pride they have in a place and culture that too few Americans have taken the time to understand and appreciate.
To the extent that you are selling those things, I’m buying it. You’ve got a fabulous product."
My point is simply that Daugaard's fiscal policy is not very marketable in MN, not that MN is better in every way. As I said in the post, MN is far from perfect, and there are many aspects of SD quality-of-life that are comparable or superior to MN. My point was about the marketability of Daugaard's fiscal policies in MN.
9.1% of Minnesota's bridges are structurally deficient, in the chemical toilet 20.6% are.
Several years ago, I worked in a staffing service, and quite frequently people would come in looking for jobs, that had relocated from the cities, because they had been hearing how low the cost of living here is. Their major complaint was when you compared the wages, to the cost of housing in the cities, you couldn't begin to afford comparable housing to what they had left. Another complaint was the poor bus service in Sioux Falls. Lack of routes, and lack of hours available. SD isn't as perfect as a lot of people think it is, and if I was considerably younger and wealthier I would be relocating, probably to Denmark.
I'd love to look at a lake cabin in Minnesota, as James suggests. Can't afford it, though, with my South Dakota wages.
Well, in Snyder's defense, he did wait until his 3rd post before he told us to "...so just move there." It is the same tired defense people give when they really have no answers, no solutions, or no vision for the future.
Maybe that's South Dakota's problem: we don't want to look for solutions. We don't want people to bring new ideas to the table. We just want to keep doing things the same way as always, and we want people who think differently to go elsewhere.
Other parts of the country change takes place so often they expect it. We're used to things being the same and prefer the reassurance things are good just the way they are and how dare you suggest it's not.
South Dakota is hell-bent on destruction of historical buildings and geography but firmly committed to unchanging political inanity otherwise.