With governor's veto, all three child care proposals stymied during 2025 legislative session
Sen. Tim Reed, R-Brookings, testifies to the South Dakota Senate Local Government Committee on Jan. 22, 2025. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight)
South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden has vetoed a bill offering financial assistance to a broader swath of child care workers.
Rhoden's Wednesday veto of House Bill 1132 closes the book, for now, on all three child care bills drawn up by a task force convened to study ways out of the state's affordability and access woes – and the resultant difficulties for workplace recruiters. Lawmakers could override Rhoden's action with a two-thirds vote of each chamber when they gather on March 31 to consider his vetoes.
HB 1132 would open up child care tuition assistance to full-time child care workers if their household incomes are 300% of the federal poverty line or less. The subsidy is currently available to any households at 209% of the poverty level or below.
Child care bills fail but give rise to optimism about study and task force
In a letter to lawmakers explaining his veto, Rhoden said he didn't feel an expansion of the subsidy program was fair to all South Dakotans.
'This would be the first time in South Dakota that our state safety net programs would give enhanced benefits to people working one type of job or occupation,' the governor wrote.
He also cited the lack of an appropriation to cover additional costs for what would have been an expanded program.
Supporters had urged their fellow lawmakers to think less in terms of fairness to all occupations and more about the practical impact of this particular flavor of preferential treatment: More day care openings for parents all across the state.
Laws similar to HB 1132 have been used in states like Kentucky and North Dakota to help child caregivers afford their own child care, thereby allowing them to stay at work and care for the children of others.
'We had hoped that our state could think about things differently,' said Sen. Tim Reed, R-Brookings, who carried HB 1132 in the Senate and was co-lead of the task force.
Kayla Klein, of the nonprofit group Early Learner South Dakota, called HB 1132 'a solution' that had proven its worth.
'I am disheartened by the decision, but want all of those providers, families and children out there to know that we will continue to search for solutions to make meaningful and impactful change,' Klein said Wednesday.
The Senate's 20-14 passage of HB 1132 had stood as a bright spot for the advocates who've spent years looking for ways to open up more day care slots and hold the line on prices – sometimes high enough to make staying home with kids a wiser financial move for parents than working. Klein said after the Senate vote she was 'thrilled that the legislative body has taken the child care crisis and words from their constituents to heart.'
'This brings us one step closer to stabilizing the child care industry — the workforce behind the workforce,' Klein said at the time.
Reed had carried that message on the Senate floor, and the message carried the day in spite of opposition that sounded much like Rhoden's reasoning for the veto.
Sen. Kevin Jensen, R-Canton, argued that it's unfair to give a 'carve out' to day care workers and not workers in other fields.
'The one group that I think should be included in this are our teachers,' he said, referring to K-12 teachers. 'Why don't our teachers get a break on their child care?'
Some lawmakers in the House had similar reservations.
'We in the Legislature, and most certainly those of us serving on appropriations, know full well that child care is not the only sector of our economy that is struggling to build and maintain the workforce,' Rep. Jack Kolbeck, R-Sioux Falls, said on Feb. 19.
The other planks of advocates' hoped-for child care platform had less success.
On Feb. 20, the state Senate's budget committee voted 5-3 against pitching in more state dollars to the subsidy program.
The subsidy bill would have upped payments to families who get child care assistance. In South Dakota, the federal grant funds that support the subsidy pay up to 75% of the market rate cost – a rate calculated biennially – for child care.
The task force had hoped to bump that up to 90% of the market rate, getting closer to covering the cost of care.
'If we're going to provide assistance, we should do it at the market rate,' Reed told the Senate Appropriations Committee.
There's a delicate dance to setting child care rates, according to Kerri Tietgen of EmBe, a nonprofit with two large centers in Sioux Falls.
'The true cost of child care continues to rise, driven by increasing wages for child care, teachers, higher food prices and the need to maintain a safe and enriching environment for children,' she said. 'Our organization continuously looks for ways to offset costs, but like many providers, we're stuck between rising expenses and the ceiling of affordable rates for families.'
But South Dakota can't afford to spend more on child care subsidies, said Jason Simmons of the state Department of Social Services. The state can only get $32 million in federal money for the subsidy, Simmons said, and already has to chip in an $800,000 match to receive that. Because of the cap on federal dollars, the state would need to come up with $8.25 million to cover everyone who's eligible at the higher rate.
Since the state can't afford to make up the difference, Simmons said, the subsidy change 'would greatly reduce the number of people that are eligible for the program.'
South Dakota already does a better-than-average job with reimbursements, he said. Federal guidelines suggest that a state reimburse at 75% of the market rate, and South Dakota is one of just 17 states to 'reimburse that high.'
'South Dakota isn't often mentioned as one of the top states in the nation for reimbursement rates, and we are in this area,' Simmons said.
Sen. Taffy Howard moved to defeat Reed's bill. The Rapid City Republican said she's suspicious of subsidies and questions whether the state ought to have a role in child care. 'We have to admit this is a welfare program, and our nation is broke,' Howard said.
Before using his carve-outs argument on the Senate floor against HB 1132, Jensen voiced it during panel discussion of the proposal to extend child care help to graduate students, Senate Bill 118.
'I'm concerned that it's another carve out where we expect the entire state to pay for a few people's needs,' Jensen said Feb. 5, when the bill had a hearing with the Senate Health and Human Services Committee.
Lawmaker proposes bills to increase child care affordability, sustainability based on new report
SB 118 aimed to adjust an existing 'carve-out' within the child care subsidy program. Undergraduate students who have children and fit income guidelines can access the subsidy under current law, regardless of how many hours they may work between classes. Income-eligible graduate students with kids can't, however, unless they work 80 hours or more a month.
SB 118 would have changed that by opening the subsidy up to income-eligible grad students with a combined total of 80 monthly hours at work or in class.
Sen. Sydney Davis, its prime sponsor, told the Senate Education Committee on Feb. 2 that the state ought to encourage grad students with kids to better themselves. People with master's degrees contribute to the state's economy and fill important roles that South Dakotans with less education cannot, she said.
But Department of Social Services Secretary Matt Althoff called SB 118 'a boutique tweak' to the law. He told the committee he understands that graduate student parents might have difficulties, but said they're also in a more privileged position than undergraduates.
'But we do say no, an awful lot, and that is an ongoing thing in our stewardship of the safety net,' Althoff said. 'We have set clear, bright lines.'
The committee sided with Althoff and defeated SB 112 on a 5-3 vote.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's No Tax On Tips Crusade Could Backfire
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Ending federal income taxes on tips, one of President Donald Trump's signature campaign pledges in the 2024 election, could potentially backfire as Americans grow weary of tipping, experts have told Newsweek. No tax on tips was something the president said he would enact "first thing" if he won the November election. The idea, launched in the service industry behemoth that is Las Vegas, quickly took hold with the electorate, so much so that his Democratic opponent Kamala Harris was quick to pledge the same relief for tipped workers should she win the White House race. Fast forward 5 months into the second Trump administration, the pledge hasn't yet been enacted, but the idea is certainly beginning to take shape. As part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Republicans have proposed a new tax deduction on tipped income up to $160,000 while keeping payroll taxes that are used to pay for Social Security and Medicare. Other legislative efforts have also been made. Texas Senator Ted Cruz, along with a bipartisan group of co-sponsors, introduced the No Tax on Tips Act to Congress in January, which would establish a new tax deduction of up to $25,000 for tips, subject to certain restrictions. "Whether it passes free-standing or as part of the bigger bill, one way or another, 'No Tax on Tips' is going to become law and give real relief to hardworking Americans," Cruz said on the Senate floor. The bill passed the chamber in May with support from both parties. Lawmakers are clearly keen on the idea, and the proposal is certainly popular with the American public, too. Polling conducted exclusively for Newsweek by Redfield & Wilton Strategies back in July 2024 showed that 67 percent of Americans do not believe tips given to service workers should be taxed. But the proposal, if enacted, could have some unintended consequences, business experts have told Newsweek. Tipping Culture Fatigue Javier Palomarez, founder and CEO of the United States Hispanic Business Council, told Newsweek the policy could "reinforce tipping in the short term but erode it over time," pointing to a growing phenomenon of tipping fatigue—a weariness among consumers increasingly asked to tip in situations where it wasn't previously expected. A BankRate survey conducted between April and May this year found that 41 percent of Americans believe tipping is "out of control" and that businesses should better compensate their employees instead of relying on gratuities to provide a wage. Thirty-eight percent reported being annoyed with pre-entered tip screens, which are usually used in automated checkouts, particularly in cafes or fast food restaurants. Still, the generosity of many Americans could pull through, at least for a short while. "By framing tips as a tax-free bonus, the policy may temporarily boost the perceived generosity and importance of tipping, encouraging consumers to view it as a more impactful way to support service workers," Palomarez said. Composite image created by Newsweek. Composite image created by Newsweek. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva But it's unlikely to be straightforward. "Cultural norms around tipping are sticky," he said. "By signaling that tipped workers deserve special tax treatment, the policy may further divide and complicate service industry compensation norms—bolstering tips in some sectors like restaurants while emphasizing reform calls in others like delivery services or app-based platforms. Over time, this could lead to service charges or higher base pay as consumers question tipping." Speaking to Newsweek, Mark Luscombe, principal analyst for Wolters Kluwer's Tax and Accounting Division North America, warned that "the perception that tipped employees have a tax advantage may discourage tipping or at least the same amount of tipping by customers who are fully taxed on their incomes." Pay Boost for Workers While tipping fatigue is certainly on the rise, the pay boost for workers in the service industry is tangible. The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center has estimated that middle-income households could pocket an extra $1,800 per year under the plan. Joseph Camberato, CEO at emphasized that the policy is not necessarily designed to address tipping culture—for all its pros and cons—at large. "We've all seen those 'tip' prompts at self-checkout machines for things you grabbed off a shelf yourself," Camberato told Newsweek. "This policy doesn't fix that, and honestly, it's not meant to. It's for the 1.8 million restaurant servers who rely on tips to pay their bills. For them, not getting taxed on that income is a big deal. This policy targets the right group and gives them a meaningful raise, basically overnight." He added, "If anything, it's going to help the people who deserve tips the most like servers, bartenders, hospitality workers, walk away with more money. Remember, they usually get taxed 15 to 20 percent on tips. Take that off the table, and it's like giving them a 15 to 20 percent raise. "If you're already a tipper, you're not suddenly going to stop because of this bill. But the person on the other side of the transaction is going to be walking away with more money, and that's the point."
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Ben Crump Says Donald Trump's Spending Bill is Terrible Amid Elon Musk Feud
Ben Crump's picked his side in the Elon Musk and Donald Trump beef ... but, he's not backing a personality, he says he's backing the better idea -- and, he doesn't want the "One Big Beautiful Bill" to pass through the Senate. We caught up with the civil rights activist and attorney and asked him about the fight between POTUS and his former advisor ... and, he doesn't directly say he's on Elon's side -- but, he does think this spending bill is terrible. Crump rips the bill for making cuts to Medicaid -- the medical assistance program for people with lower incomes. BC says the world needs more humanity for all people ... instead of making the life of individuals struggling financially more difficult. As you know ... Elon lost his cool about this spending bill earlier this week -- firing off shots at the president and claiming Trump only won reelection because of his efforts. President Trump called BS on that idea ... but, Elon pushed on and claimed the real reason the administration hasn't released the so-called Epstein files is because the president's name is all over them. He's since deleted the post where he wrote that ... but, today Trump warned of serious consequences if Elon decides to support Dems who are running against Republicans who vote for the bill. BTW ... we also asked Crump about Trump potentially pardoning Diddy -- and, it sounds like Crump's staying out of that one, too. Bottom line ... back the idea, not the man -- that's the Ben Crump way!
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Musk flips on Trump, ‘big, beautiful' bill
Washington (DC News Now) — Tension rose this week between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump. Musk is aiming for Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill that is now in the hands of the Senate. Dr. Omekongo Dibinga joins Capitol Review this week to discuss what impact Musk could have on Trump. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.