State plans to decrease its payments to the needy
DSS will hold a public hearing on Friday, June 20, at 11:00 a.m. CT at state government's new One Stop Center at 1501 S. Highline Avenue in Sioux Falls.
The number of South Dakota families receiving payments from the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program varies month to month, according to DSS statistics. In April, the most recent month for which data was publicly reported, there were 2,487 families. That was down from a 12-month high of 2,567 in October.
New Spring Creek owner shares golf course plans
The department's proposed TANF cuts come at the same time that the Legislature gave state government employees a 1.25% pay raise that takes effect July 1. State aid to K-12 education and for health-care providers will rise 1.25% as well.
DSS officials say the proposed cuts result from the Legislature reducing the department's general funding for the coming year by $5.3 million.
Actually, then-Gov. Kristi Noem had recommended in her December budget proposal a $5,168,200 general-fund reduction for the economic assistance division in DSS that oversees TANF payments. The department, in turn, planned to use a similar additional amount of federal funds as an offset, according to page 20 of a presentation made on January 21 to the Legislature's Joint Committee on Appropriations.
That presentation referred to the maneuver as 'Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Fund Swap.' The document made no mention of any proposed cut to TANF payments. The department's then-chief financial officer, Jason Simmons, didn't speak about it either.
'This year, in working with the governor's office and BFM (Bureau of Finance and Management), with revenues down and having to fund things like FMAP (federal medical assistance percentage) change and different things, our directive is to spend down some of that carryover. So this would be more of a temporary solution,' Simmons told the committee. He continued, 'This is not something that we're going to be able to do for many, many years, but it's something we can do in a pinch for a few years to get us through, to spend down that carryover and continue to deliver these services.'
Five minutes later, DSS Secretary Matt Althoff expanded on those remarks. Responding to a question from Democratic Rep. Erik Muckey, Althoff said, 'We're going to examine our benefits and say, Is there a way we can reduce those as well? So we'll continue to look at that. We've got a preliminary plan that, as recommended, would take effect July first.'
One of the panel's co-chairs, Republican Rep. Mike Derby, asked Simmons to go through the mechanics of the TANF fund swap one more time.
Simmons explained that money left over from the federal block grant that the department receives each year can be placed in a carryover account. Simmons said the department gets $21.2 million of federal funds each year and state government puts in $8.5 million for a total TANF funding of $29.7 million. At the end of fiscal 2024, the department had $23.4 million of carryover funds available.
Simmons said the plan was to tap the federal carryover to offset reductions in state general funds, spending the oldest layer of federal funds first.
Noem's $34,665,498 recommendation of general funds for the new budget year that starts July 1 would have returned the division's general funding to roughly the $34,415,895 actually spent in 2024.
State lawmakers in March ultimately appropriated $34,517,352 of general funds to the economic assistance division for the 2026 budget year. That was slightly more than the amount actually spent in 2024 and slightly less than the amount Noem had recommended.
Asked Monday about the proposed TANF cuts, Republican Sen. Ernie Otten told KELOLAND News that he expects to see the department make reductions in other areas too. Otten and Derby co-chair the Legislature's Joint Committee on Appropriations that assembles state government's budget each year.
DSS never came back to the committee with a detailed plan or a change from what they presented, according to information that Derby received from the Legislature's chief fiscal analyst Jeff Mehlhaff and forwarded on Tuesday to KELOLAND News. Mehlhaff told Derby, 'We have reached out to the Secretary of DSS multiple times with no response.'
An average of 2,460 households per month received TANF payments during the 2024 budget year, according to the DSS fiscal note that was prepared for the proposed 10% cut. The average monthly amount was $518.06. Altogether, those payments totaled $15,293,131.20 in annual TANF costs, the department said, and a reduction of 10% from the current TANF payment standards equals $1,529,313.12.
A statement signed by Secretary Althoff says the proposed financial cuts in TANF payments would have 'no impact' on small businesses.
'TANF is a needs-based program for families with children under age 18 (or under age 19 if the child is in high school) who need financial support because of the death of a parent; a parent is absent from the home; or the physical or mental incapacity or unemployment of a parent.Families with serious financial needs may qualify for TANF monthly payments,' the statement says.
Public comments at the June 20 hearing about the TANF reductions can be made in person at the Sioux Falls One Stop Center or by telephone at 1-605-679-7263 and using conference code 183 579 146 #.
Written public comments can be sent through June 30 to Teresa Schulte, Administrative Rules C219, Department of Social Services, 1501 S. Highline Ave., Sioux Falls, SD 57110 or can be emailed to DSSAdminRules@state.sd.us.
Many lawmakers also were upset during the 2025 legislative session after learning about the Noem administration's decisions to enter long-term leases for new One Stop centers in Sioux Falls and Rapid City. Most of state government's local offices including those of DSS in the two communities have since moved to the centers.
Noem resigned as governor in January after she received U.S. Senate confirmation as the new federal Homeland Security secretary. After she left, the Legislature unanimously adopted a new law requiring lawmakers' approval of any lease longer than 15 years and costing more than $5 million in total or more than $50,000 per month.
Leases for One Stop centers in Sioux Falls and Rapid City are for 30 years and will cost an estimated $200 million more during that time than had state government continued with previous leases for locations scattered throughout the communities. The new law however doesn't apply to any past lease agreements.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Paramount, President Trump Reach $16 Million Settlement Over 60 Minutes Lawsuit
Paramount will settle President Donald Trump's lawsuit over an October 60 Minutes interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, CBS' parent company announced late Tuesday. The settlement, for $16 million, will be paid to Trump's future presidential library and also cover the plaintiffs' fees and costs. Neither Trump nor co-plaintiff Rep. Ronny Jackson will directly receive monies from the settlement. More from TVLine Matlock Duo Sing Us a Li'l Something, Rave That 'Everyone' Now Wants to Appear on the CBS Hit - WATCH In NCIS: Origins Season 2, Will Gibbs Go From 'Probie' to Assertive Agent? EP Previews 'Honest' Evolution Ahead FBI: International Co-Creator Reacts to Cancellation, Believes It 'Had Nothing to Do With the Quality' of Spinoff Paramount also agreed that 60 Minutes moving forward will release transcripts of interviews with any presidential candidates, minus any redactions dictated by national security concerns. Paramount will not issue an apology. The lawsuit, filed on Oct. 31 — just days before the presidential election — centered on CBS News' dissemination of two different clips of Democratic nominee Harris' thoughts on the conflict in the Middle East. A longer version aired on Face the Nation, while a shorter excerpt was used the next day on 60 Minutes. CBS News had always maintained that each excerpt reflected the substance of Harris' answer, and in February full transcripts were released to support that stance. Ten days prior to filing suit, Trump called for CBS to no less than 'lose its license,' which is not really a thing. ('The FCC does not and will not revoke licenses for broadcast stations simply because a political candidate disagrees with or dislikes content or coverage,' the commission made clear in October.) 'I've never seen anything like it,' Trump told Fox News' Media Buzz on Oct. 20. '[CBS decided to take] the whole ridiculous answer out, and it was a long answer, and replace it [on 60 Minutes] with a much shorter answer that she did having to do with a totally different subject.' 'Same question. Same answer. But a different portion of the response,' asserted an Oct. 21 statement from 60 Minutes. 'When we edit any interview… we strive to be clear, accurate and on point. The portion of her answer on 60 Minutes was more succinct, which allows time for other subjects in a wide-ranging, 21-minute-long segment.' Trump's lawsuit was filed in federal court in the Northern District of Texas Amarillo — where the lone judge is a 2019 Trump appointee — and made unusual use of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act, which is meant to keep advertisers from misleading the public about a product being sold. The plaintiffs originally sought $10 billion in damages, and bumped up the number to $20 billion in February, arguing that millions of Americans 'were confused and misled by the two doctored Interview versions.' After the suit was filed, longtime 60 Minutes executive producer Bill Owens announced his exit, saying it has 'become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it.' Wendy McMahon, CEO of CBS News and Stations, also stepped down, saying, 'It's become clear that the company and I do not agree on the path forward.' Paramount's settlement comes six months after ABC News agreed to apologize and pay $15 million to settle a suit brought by Trump for comments made on-air by George Stephanopoulos in March 2024. Of note, Paramount's $8.4 billion merger with Skydance Media is still awaiting approval from the FCC, which is now led by Trump appointee Brendan Carr, and recently let a soft May deadline come and go. Best of TVLine 'Missing' Shows, Found! Get the Latest on Ahsoka, Monarch, P-Valley, Sugar, Anansi Boys and 25+ Others Yellowjackets Mysteries: An Up-to-Date List of the Series' Biggest Questions (and Answers?) The Emmys' Most Memorable Moments: Laughter, Tears, Historical Wins, 'The Big One' and More

Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Siena poll pits Hochul against Stefanik, Blakeman, Lawler for governor
Jul. 1—Gov. Kathleen C. Hochul leads the pack of likely gubernatorial candidates for next year's election, and Rep. Elise M. Stefanik is slightly outmatched by Hudson Valley Rep. Mike R. Lawler in theoretical contests against the incumbent, according to the latest Siena College Research Institute poll. According to the poll released on Tuesday, Hochul has at least 20 points of advantage over any of the three Republicans who appear most likely to run for their party's nomination for governor; Stefanik, Lawler and Nassau County Executive Bruce A. Blakeman. In the three separate contests, SCRI found that Hochul would lead handily among Democrats and independents, and carry 44% of the vote against both Lawler and Blakeman, who would carry 24% and 19% of the vote respectively. Against Stefanik, more people said they'd vote for Hochul, 47%, to 24% who would go to Stefanik. Stefanik did the best of the three with GOP voters and independents, but more Democrats said they'd vote Hochul over her than in the other contests if the election scheduled for November 2026 were held today. "Recognizing that 16 months in politics is many lifetimes away, a first look at how New York voters feel about potential gubernatorial matchups shows that partisanship wins out. Hochul leads Lawler by 20 points, Stefanik by 23 points and Blakeman by 25 points," Siena College Research Institute Director Don Levy said in a statement alongside the poll results. Levy noted that Hochul isn't pulling great numbers for an incumbent in such a heavily Democratic state, and that between one-fourth and one-third of voters had no choice in each of the three match-ups. Hochul's job approval, favorability and basic reelection numbers aren't all positive either; while 50% approve of the job she's doing, more people dislike her, 47%, than like her, 42%, and only 37% said they'd reelect her versus a non-specific "other candidate." These numbers have stayed roughly the same for the last few months. For Stefanik, favorability numbers are likewise underwater, with 25% of voters reporting that they like her and 32% who dislike her. Lawler is more closely tied, with 22% who like him to 24% who do not and 54% who don't know him or have no opinion. In a Republican primary, Stefanik is most likely to win, but many minds are not made up. The numbers show that voters are favoring Stefanik 35%, to 18% for Lawler and 7% for Blakeman. In a Democratic primary, Hochul far outpaces her one declared opponent, Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado. Delgado pulls 12% to Hochul's 49%, and Rep. Ritchie Torres, who has not declared a campaign for governor, gets 10%. "One year out from a potential primary, two in five Republicans don't know who they'll support among Stefanik, Lawler and Blakeman, but Stefanik maintains an early lead, 17 points ahead of Lawler, who is 11 points ahead of Blakeman," Levy said. "On the Democratic side, Hochul has huge leads of 37 points over Delgado and 39 points over Torres, each of whom remains largely unknown to more than half of Democrats." The poll also asked voters for their positions on a number of bills passed by the state legislature this year. Voters widely approved of the issues SCRI asked about, with at least 70% of Republicans, Democrats and independents each supporting a requirement that state agencies disclose when they use artificial intelligence and requiring state prisons to expand video and audio surveillance in prison common areas. At least 60% of Democrats, Republicans and independents also said they supported a move to create a state utility consumer advocate's office to advocate for consumers before the Public Service Commission when utility companies seek rate increases. A plurality of Republicans and a majority of Democrats and independents said they approved of a bill that allows the state attorney general to sue businesses on behalf of customers in cases of alleged unfair or abusive practices. Perhaps the most controversial single-issue bill considered this year was one to allow medically assisted suicide, termed "medical aid in dying," in New York. The SCRI poll found that 54% of all New Yorkers back the bill as passed. "While it doesn't have the same level of support as several other less controversial bills that passed the legislature at the end of session, voters support what some call medical aid in dying and others call physician assisted suicide, 54-28%. It has better than two-to-one support from Democrats and independents, and Republicans support it 48-39%," Levy said. "It has support from at least 53% of voters from every region of the state, and at least 54% support from young, middle-aged and older voters. Jewish voters, 53-30%, and Catholic voters, 52-30%, support it at virtually equal levels. All those major pieces of legislation await the governor's approval, veto or negotiation on amendments, which must come before the end of the year. This poll was conducted from June 23 to 26, reaching 800 New York voters via phone and an online polling platform. The margin of error is 4.4 percent in either direction.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk vows to start a new political party. Here's why that's harder than it sounds.
As billionaire Elon Musk feuds with President Trump over his signature tax and domestic policy legislation, Musk has reupped his calls to launch a new political party — a daunting task even for the wealthiest person on Earth. Musk first floated launching a third party, dubbed the "America Party," earlier this month, part of a nasty back-and-forth between the president and the Tesla CEO that marked the likely end of their political alliance. Musk raised the idea again this week as lawmakers raced to send the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to Mr. Trump's desk — and this time, Musk put a time limit on the plan. "If this insane spending bill passes, the America Party will be formed the next day," Musk wrote in a post on X Monday evening, hours before the bill passed the Senate on Tuesday and headed back to the House. "Our country needs an alternative to the Democrat-Republican uniparty so that the people actually have a VOICE." It remains unclear if Musk will follow through on his pledge, but the idea could be easier said than done. If Musk decides to launch a new political party, he'll need to contend with a thicket of complicated state laws, time-consuming ballot access rules and intense litigation. "Only the richest person in the world could make a serious effort at creating a new American political party," Brett Kappel, a veteran election lawyer, told CBS News. Navigating 50 different state laws — and federal rules "Political parties are creatures of the states," Kappel said. Each state has different legal rules for recognizing which political parties can appear on the ballot, and those hurdles "range from high to extraordinarily difficult to overcome," he noted. In some cases, a nascent state party may need to get candidates onto the ballot by submitting large numbers of signatures, and then win a certain percentage of the vote across election cycles. For example, to qualify in California, a new political party needs to either sign up 0.33% of the state's voters — or about 75,000 people — as registered members, or submit signatures from 1.1 million voters. After that, in order to remain qualified, parties have to either maintain that 0.33% registration threshold or win at least 2% of the vote in a statewide race. And to gain recognition at the national level, each state-level political party would need to seek an advisory opinion from the Federal Election Commission. These efforts would almost certainly face intense pushback from the Democratic and Republican parties, including legal challenges over signatures in each state, requiring Musk — or any other aspiring third-party founder — to spend scores of money on litigation. "The state laws in all of the states are biased towards the two major political parties, and make it as difficult as possible for the emergence of a third political party," Kappel told CBS News. The process of creating a political party with national ambitions would be time-consuming, too. Kappel says it might be doable — albeit difficult — for Musk to get a few favored candidates onto the ballot in certain states, but building an entirely new national party would likely take years, and would not be possible by the 2026 midterm elections. For evidence of how challenging the process is, look no further than the struggles that existing third parties have faced. The Green Party and Libertarian Party were each founded decades ago, and still engage in state-by-state pushes for ballot access and party recognition. "The hurdles for creating a new party and getting it on the ballot are extremely high. It can be done if you have endless amounts of money, but it's a multi-year project and will cost hundreds of millions of dollars," Kappel said. Musk's campaign cash The high cost of launching a political party may not be a big stumbling block for Musk, whose net worth exceeds $350 billion according to Forbes and Bloomberg's valuations. The Tesla and SpaceX leader spent a staggering $277 million to aid Mr. Trump and other Republican candidates in the 2024 election cycle. The bulk of that spending, roughly $239 million, was routed through America PAC, a political action committee founded by Musk that underwrote a sprawling get-out-the-vote effort across the swing states. Since then, Musk has hinted that he plans to dial back his involvement in politics. His tenure leading the Trump administration's cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency ended in May, a month after telling Tesla shareholders his work with the federal government will "drop significantly." He also said at the Qatar Economic Forum in May that he will "do a lot less" political spending moving forward, noting he doesn't "currently see a reason" to keep opening his wallet. If Musk follows through on his proposal to launch a competitor to the two mainstream parties, it would mark an expensive return to the fray — and the laws around how to finance it are complex. Before new political parties are formally recognized, they are typically organized as not-for-profit groups, and their financial backers do not face any dollar limits to their donations, Kappel says. But once a party gains national recognition, donors like Musk would be subject to the FEC's caps on political contributions. Currently, individuals can only give $10,000 a year to a state political party, or $44,300 a year to a national party committee, the FEC says. The rules governing when organizations are subject to those limits are byzantine. Almost two decades ago, the FEC said a group called Unity08 — which aimed to create a bipartisan presidential ticket — must register as a political committee if it spends over $1,000 trying to get ballot access. After a lengthy legal battle, an appeals court reversed that decision. Another way for Musk to keep wielding political influence would be through America PAC. The group is organized as a super PAC, which allows Musk to donate unlimited sums of money, but requires the group to remain officially independent from candidates or political parties. Even as he mused about launching a third party, Musk implied this week he could remain engaged in Republican politics. The billionaire suggested he will back primary challenges against GOP lawmakers who voted for the Trump-endorsed One Big Beautiful Bill Act. He also vowed to lend support to Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who voted against the bill and is facing a Trump-backed primary contest. The president, for his part, has said in recent days that Musk appears to be "upset" that his signature tax and domestic policy bill would phase out electric vehicle tax credits — which could cost Tesla billions. Some of Musk's criticisms of the bill have focused on its steep cuts to green energy incentives, though he has also argued the bill is too expensive. "I think Elon is a wonderful guy, and I know he's going to do well always," Mr. Trump told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo in an interview that aired Sunday. "But he got a little bit upset, and that wasn't appropriate." Robots on verge of outnumbering humans at Amazon warehouses, Wall Street Journal reports Next steps in Sean "Diddy" Combs trial after partial verdict Reporter's Notebook: When politicians cry wolf on fiscal restraint