South Dakota lawmakers will soon resume debate on a budget-cutting plan targeting library services within the state.

Legislative committees are likely to take another look at Gov. Kristi Noem's proposal to reduce the State Library's main budget by more than $1 million, along with federal funding requiring a state match. A companion bill would repeal the agency's responsibilities.

Elizabeth Fox, president of the South Dakota Library Association and a librarian at South Dakota State University, warned the office would barely exist under the governor's approach. She said it now secures dozens of databases, which help students in many ways, like preparing for college entrance exams. Local branches benefit, too.

"There's medical databases," Fox pointed out. "If you go to the doctor and get told that you have something and you want to learn about it, the public library can help you do so through the databases provided by the State Library."

Fox noted while policymakers embracing these moves might argue about government efficiency, the State Library has purchasing power, which keeps costs lower. She argued taking away that ability would force school and municipal libraries to buy resources on their own when they are more expensive, putting pressure on local taxpayers.

As states try to fill workforce shortages, Fox feels such moves would set students back in charting a path for their professional lives.

"If this goes through, students will not even have a print index to find a journal article that they could go look in print," Fox explained. "It does put the state at a great disadvantage."

Other potential effects include the loss of library staff training for local sites and the use of a courier system allowing patrons to request a book from a different branch. Meanwhile, the national advocacy group EveryLibrary fears South Dakota's plans could be replicated by other states with similar budget motivations.


get more stories like this via email

Ohio union and clean energy leaders are urging their U.S. Senators to reject a sweeping reconciliation bill they said would devastate families and reverse economic progress across the state.

They pointed out the proposal includes eliminating federal tax credits which have helped local governments invest in affordable energy and infrastructure.

Joe Flarida, executive director of Power a Clean Future Ohio, said repealing clean energy tax credits would drive up utility bills and force cuts to essential local services.

"We expect this summer to see utility rates reach as high as a 30% increase for American families," Flarida explained. "For folks sitting at their kitchen table and trying to do their budget, a 30% increase for utility rates is decimating."

The bill would repeal clean energy and manufacturing tax credits, risking $27.5 billion in investments and nearly 16,000 jobs in Ohio, according to the BlueGreen Alliance.

Lee Geisse, Ohio senior state policy manager for the BlueGreen Alliance, a coalition of union and environmental organizations, said the bill's wide-ranging cuts would create ripple effects across nearly every sector, affecting schools, health systems and job opportunities.

"I hope folks understand how this is all intertwined," Geisse emphasized. "It's going to take a lot of hard work for us, all of us and our members and our allies and partners, to get this point across."

Melissa Cropper, president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers, warns Medicaid cuts tied to the bill could weaken student support services and even contribute to school staff reductions.

"We're concerned that with these cuts, school health professionals like speech pathologists, occupational therapists, school nurses and all psychologists who all rely on Medicaid funding, will be cut," Cropper stressed.

The bill's detractors said the proposal threatens momentum in Ohio's clean energy economy and could roll back support for workers, families and schools at a critical time.

Federal data show roughly 75,000 South Dakota households rely on SNAP benefits to put food on the table and hunger-fighting groups paint a troubling picture if Congress goes through with big program cuts.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, once known as food stamps, faces a possible downsizing in the budget reconciliation bill now in the Senate. It has already cleared the House. Relief organizations say cuts proposed along the way could take away enough food for more than 9 billion meals on average every year.

Lori Dykstra, CEO of Feeding South Dakota, said it would be harder for her network to pick up the slack with donations on the decline.

"At a time when resources are the lowest, need is the highest," Dykstra pointed out. "We're in this challenging space to be able to fill that gap as a food bank."

Because of economic uncertainty, she noted businesses that normally donate excess food are being careful not to overstock. Dykstra emphasized SNAP benefits give struggling households more healthy food choices during times like these. A key GOP Senator said even though legislative rules have cast doubt over some provisions, they will still seek reforms to preserve SNAP for those who need it, while saving taxpayer dollars.

The Senate version still has nearly $100 billion in proposed cuts as Republicans look to offset proposed tax cut extensions. Poverty researchers said misinformation continues to spread about the integrity of SNAP, noting payment errors are often unintentional and fraud is only a small portion of program activity.

Vince Hall, chief government relations officer for Feeding America, a nonprofit network of 200 food banks, said the current approach targets the wrong people.

"Instead of addressing fraud in a thoughtful and effective way, it's using fraud as an excuse to hurt people who are honest, hardworking; seniors, who are in their golden years; people with disabilities; active-duty military," Hall outlined. "It is harming all of those families."

Feeding America added losing access to SNAP benefits would hurt recipients in other ways, too. For example, adults who get SNAP benefits spend about $1,400 less on average per year for medical care than adults who do not. The organization worries people would have to make tougher choices, like whether to pay for health care needs or food.

The budget reconciliation bill being considered by the U.S. Senate proposes $863 billion in Medicaid reductions over a decade, with 10.9 million Americans projected to lose coverage by 2034, according to a June 4 Congressional Budget Office report.

In Florida, where 760,000 Medicaid enrollees rely on community health centers, advocates say the cuts would destabilize preventive care and overwhelm hospitals.

Austin Helton, CEO of Brevard Health Alliance, said the cuts would dismantle primary-care access, rupturing what he called Florida's "health-care ecosystem."

"If you cut spending on Medicaid and ACA, which primarily pays for access to primary-care health services at community health centers, that access is gone," he said. "The patients are still going to need that care. They're just going to end up sicker and they're going to end up going to more costly and more complex environments like the emergency room at the hospital."

Helton said the cuts would hit hardest at health-care facilities such as those under Brevard, where 60% to 70% of patients use Medicaid or ACA plans.

While the Florida Policy Institute warns of clinic closures and reduced hours, supporters say the changes target inefficiencies, with House leaders claiming they'll reduce wasteful spending while protecting vulnerable patients.

Florida's community health centers, which serve one in eight Medicaid patients statewide, face what advocates call an impossible math problem: more patients but fewer resources.

"As the population in Florida increases, the number of our patients increase, the number of Medicaid enrollees decreases," said Jonathan Chapman, CEO of the Florida Association of Community Health Centers. "Therefore, by process of elimination, you're going to see more uninsured people on our doorstep."

The Congressional Budget Office projects Florida would lose $7.3 billion in federal Medicaid funds by 2030 under the House plan, with rural counties such as Gadsden and DeSoto facing severe strain. The bill remains stalled in the Senate, where Republicans are divided over many issues, including rural hospital protections.