The Democrats shouldn’t try to balance costly social programs on the backs of rural Americans

It is a fact of electoral politics: if Democrats want to win in 2020, they must find ways to speak to rural America. Unfortunately, the efforts of many of our presidential candidates have been hit or miss.

On the positive side, the Democratic hopefuls are as a group strong on fighting inequality. In a nation where prosperity falls off the further one travels from an urban center — and in a state where nearly one in four rural residents lives in poverty — we need smart solutions to counter the economic forces holding small towns back. Expanded health care access, better education and improved broadband availability are among the ideas that make sense.

But the plans we support must be realistic — and this includes the funding mechanisms for them. How candidates intend to pay for ambitions like Medicare for All matters as much as the details of their programs. And it’s here where too many fall short: by recommending a new financial transaction tax, for example, they put South Carolina families in the crosshairs for higher costs.

A financial transaction tax may sound like a way to stick it to greedy hedge fund managers and bank executives, But while Wall Street would bear some costs of a tax, farmers and every-day Americans would be hit the hardest.

For instance, agricultural futures are a big deal here in South Carolina: they secure a price for corn, wheat, eggs or beef months in advance, helping farmers to determine how much seed to put in the ground or how many animals to ready for market. But futures are just contracts traded in financial transactions just like stocks or bonds.

That means that a financial transaction tax would directly drive up costs and increase risk for the 25,000 farms in South Carolina. It would put more pressure on the already fragile agricultural backbone of our rural economies, which contribute $3 billion each year in crop and livestock value, feed a $42 billion agribusiness industry and support more than 200,000 local jobs.

Under a financial transaction tax, South Carolina’s soy and peanuts will be more expensive, grocery bills will be higher and low-income families will have difficulty putting food on the table.

The tax would affect rural Americans in other ways, too. The money you save to prepare for a child’s education would be a target for the tax, which would also take money from pension and retirement accounts. In fact, studies suggest that even a modest financial transaction tax could cost the typical retiree $20,000 — an amount few South Carolinians can afford to lose.

My career in public service has been devoted to empowering our small towns to keep pace with change while preserving the way of life that I grew up with. When I look around our 31 rural counties, I see productive farms and hard-working families saving their pennies for a better future. And that’s why a financial transaction tax is a non-starter for me.

So here’s my message to the Democratic candidates eyeing the South Carolina primary: don’t just think about Charleston and Columbia, Greenville and Spartanburg — and ask those of us who live in rural areas whether your plans truly meet our needs. You might find that moderate ambitions with reasonable ways to pay for them are far more popular here than the extravagant visions you’re now selling.

State Rep. Russell Ott is a Democrat who represent House District 93, which includes parts of Lexington County.