One of many big political ironies was highlighted during last night’s presidential debates. Although neither candidate would address very specifically how they would cut spending given the recent financial crisis what they did do was throw out a few catch-alls they thought might stick for one or two voters. For John McCain that was “we need to cut ethanol subsidies.”

Now this probably wasn’t that big of a deal for most folks, but here in South Dakota, it is huge! More than 4 million acres of corn are planted in South Dakota in an average year. As a result, ethanol plants are prevalent throughout our state. Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Dascle spent years pushing ethanol production bills through congress and was somewhat successful in helping South Dakota grow the ethanol industry.

There could be no question that corn production and ethanol subsidies are a huge part of our economic makeup. According to a South Dakota Bureau of Finance & Management report, “payments to farms for field crops and dairy products under federal farm subsidy programs totaled $806.7 million. This amount has grown from $90.7 million in 1981 and represented 14.2% of total cash receipts in 2005.” For a state our size, that number is wildly significant.

But it isn’t just subsidies McCain opposes, it’s a $300 billion farm bill as well.This isn’t a new idea for McCain, he’s been stumping this idea for a while, but I wonder how many really caught this admission in the debate last night?

But here’s the irony - in presidential elections, at least for as long as I can remember, South Dakota votes red every year and this year South Dakota is expected to clearly vote McCain as their pick. But South Dakota isn’t the only state that would be affected by this anti-farm bill policy objective - most of the Midwest relies to some extent on farm bill monies and subsidies.

Will McCain’s obvious “anti-farm-bill spending” change the outcome of this year’s presidential choice in South Dakota? Doubtful. Although many younger voters may catch the irony of the situation most of South Dakota’s seniors could never imagine voting Democrat for a president, let alone voting in a minority candidate.

It appears to me quite ironic then, that South Dakota is so willing to help the hand that bites them in the butt in the end. But, such are the ironies of politics.