While South Dakota politicians focus on SNAP and a can of pop, they ignore the real financial issues
On Dec. 1, state Sen. Sydney Davis, R-District 17, and state Rep. Taylor Rehfeldt, R-District 14, announced legislation to reform SNAP by restricting the purchase of sugary drinks with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. Their release stated that “currently, a growing number of both Republican and Democratic-led states are stepping up to reform SNAP.”
Some may think the government shouldn’t pay for sugary drinks. I understand that initial reaction. But let’s dig a little deeper.
1. Elon Musk has received over $38 billion in contracts, subsidies, tax credits, and loans from the U.S. government — our tax dollars. Emphasis on subsidies and tax credits.
2. In 2024, South Dakota ranked fifth in the nation for reliance on farm subsidies. Between 1995 and 2024, former Gov. Kristi Noem’s family alone has collected $4.9 million. Meanwhile, a single mom of three, working two jobs and receiving $109 a month in SNAP benefits shouldn't be able to buy a diet Coke.
And yes, of course we might wish her cart was filled with fresh fruits and vegetables. But let’s be honest — I hope you’re not judging my shopping list today, either.
What also stood out to me was the claim that “many states are reforming SNAP,” with no detail about how. For example, Michigan’s “Double Up” program allows government food benefits to double in value when healthier choices are made. Studies show that these bans will only increase administrative costs and create more stigma around poverty while not making any behavioral changes.
Restricting items doesn’t help families. The path to meaningful assistance is through incentives and support — not punishment. I shared Michigan’s program with Sen. Davis, who is my state senator. Perhaps the political optics mattered more than what would actually help her constituents.
This type of legislation helps no one. It adds stigma. It won’t reduce poverty, it won’t improve educational outcomes, and it won’t improve health — because the people being targeted still won’t be able to afford health insurance.
But that 99-cent soda? That’s what we’re controlling.
Considering both Sen. Davis and Rep. Rehfeldt are health-care providers and moms, what about legislation to expand free and reduced school lunch, lower healthcare costs or make women's health more accessible for rural communities?
We’re angry at the wrong people.
We’re restricting the wrong things.
We're catering to the wrong individuals.
And in 2026, we need to start changing that.
Leslie Gerrish lives in Vermillion. She is a mother, event planner and small business owner. She also serves on the Board of Directors for United Way Vermillion
Photo: SNAP logo, public domain, wikimedia commons
The South Dakota Standard is offered freely and is supported by our readers. We have no political or commercial sponsorship. If you'd like to help us continue our mission to advance independent political and social commentary, you can do so by clicking on the "Donate" button that's on the sidebar to your right.
