A South Dakota legislative committee Monday debated proposals designed to help combat government fraud and there were clear differences of opinion on whether a key office should be given more powers.
Senate Bill 60 is one of a handful of measures this session following recent examples of former employees at various state agencies being accused of abusing their position for financial gain. The bill would expand the investigative reach of the state auditor.
Marty Jackley, South Dakota Attorney General, testified in support of the plan, noting his office has been busy with such cases.
"The Attorney General has brought five criminal cases," Jackley pointed out. "These investigations range from significant amounts of alleged $1.8 million to less significant amounts but still important taxpayer dollars."
Jackley argued the auditor needs more room to access the accounts and other financial records for all state agencies when looking at suspicious behavior. However, the Bureau of Finance and Management commissioner said existing state controls are catching such activity and additional resources are coming on board to help close gaps. Retail and banking leaders worry the plan would lead to government overreach.
In advancing the bill, a Senate committee added an amendment to exclude political subdivisions in giving the auditor account access. It was seen as a way to alleviate concerns about the motivations of future investigations.
Karl Adam, president of the South Dakota Bankers Association, told the panel it is one of his big concerns.
"This risk is especially high in politically charged environments, where investigations could be launched not based on merit, but on political motives, targeting opponents or shielding allies," Adam asserted.
In neighboring Minnesota, combating fraud is a big topic this year with outside rings accused of providing phony medical-related services for reimbursements. There are debates about tightening controls but also keeping social safety programs accessible.
get more stories like this via email
Confusion and worry quickly spread Tuesday among charitable groups and state and local governments as the Trump administration put a freeze on federal grants. Even with legal challenges, some say the fear in states such as North Dakota could be real.
The White House issued a memo ordering agencies to "temporarily pause all activities" related to distribution of federal financial assistance. Officials stressed it's meant for programs to show their priorities align with the new administration, and said direct aid for programs such as Social Security and SNAP won't be disrupted.
However, Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, noted the psychological effect in this part of the United States.
"The Dakotas, for example, are in the top 10 [states] of having per capita oldest populations in the United States," he said. "So, it would be much more important to have these programs on time and ready to go, rather than this chaos we're seeing."
With programs such as Meals on Wheels, he said, unexpected headlines about their funding status makes seniors feel uneasy about meeting day-to-day needs. A judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked the pause from taking effect, but that court order only lasts until next Monday. Democrats and even some Republicans in Congress took issue with the administration's actions, with questions about legal authority.
Critics of the move said even a temporary pause in funding could be harmful to services such as Head Start, or suicide-prevention hotlines. Fiesta said he worries that some programs could look very different after agencies are "reviewed" by White House budget leaders. He warned that pursuing government efficiency in chaotic fashion doesn't really help taxpayers.
"We could see much more strain on the health-care system, in general, on hospitals," he said. "You could see a ripple effect because of inability to get care."
He pointed out that Medicaid plays a big role in funding rural health-care networks, including nursing home costs.
Policy experts have said drastic cuts, no matter how they're carried out, could put more pressure on state budgets.
get more stories like this via email
New research details the major potential changes for New York and the nation if President Donald Trump's proposed tariffs take effect.
A Tax Foundation report found tariffs Trump implemented in his first term have kept prices "unreasonably high," tariffs former President Joe Biden maintained.
And a report from the Urban Institute's Tax Policy Center and the Brookings Institution predicts the proposed tariffs would have a 5% to 10% effect on New York's gross domestic product.
Melinda St. Louis, director of Global Trade Watch for the nonprofit consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, doesn't think President Trump is using tariffs effectively.
"Tariffs can play a constructive role in protecting U.S. jobs and enforcing labor and environmental standards when they're part of a strategic industrial policy," St. Louis acknowledged. "But Trump is not doing that. His approach is to use tariffs to bully countries."
She pointed out the tariffs threatened against Mexico and Canada would have significant effects because they are some of the largest importers of U.S. goods. Throughout his campaign, Donald Trump proposed 25% tariffs on both countries. The Tax Foundation's report estimates such tariffs, along with a 10% tariff on Chinese goods, would cut economic output and raise U.S. taxes by more than $1 trillion in the next decade.
While some tariffs are being used to bolster Trump's "America First" agenda, others are being used to handle immigration. He threatened 25% tariffs on Columbia so the country would accept two military planes full of migrants. St. Louis argued tariffs should be paired with strategic industrial policy.
"You must invest in U.S. manufacturing at the same time that you are imposing, potentially, tariffs to address unfair trade practices and punish bad corporate behavior that's pushing a race to the bottom, in terms of labor and environmental conditions," St. Louis contended.
The tariff threats come as the President has also paused federal funding and loans for some programs, which is expected to restrict projects funded by the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Research showed it could affect manufacturing jobs and cost America a chance at energy independence, even as conservative states are seeing the greatest benefits from the funding.
get more stories like this via email
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul's 2026 education budget proposal changes school funding, and some critics say it's unfair.
The formula hasn't changed in almost 20 years and uses poverty data from the 2000 census.
While advocates say the new formula improves school funding, some believe it could shortchange New York City Public Schools.
Randi Levine, policy director with Advocates for Children of New York, said this is because the formula uses the federal poverty measure.
"Making ends meet as a family of four on $30,000 is incredibly difficult in New York City, and means something very different in New York City than in other parts of the state," said Levine. "But, there are no updates in the formula to take into account those regional variations."
She said the formula's regional cost difference index is outdated too, but there are calls to update it.
Legislators will take a look during the elementary and secondary education budget hearing on January 29. Those looking to testify can learn more online at nyassembly.gov.
These concerns stem from a Rockefeller Institute study about updating New York's school funding formula. Levine said the study mentions other options that could fund schools statewide more fairly.
This includes giving higher weight to districts with higher student poverty rates. Levine said lawmakers must come together to fill the funding gap.
"We need our New York City state legislators to do all they can to ensure New York City students get the resources they need," said Levine. "It is not acceptable for New York City to lose funding that is supposed to go to helping low-income students get a high-quality education."
She added that the current formula's reliance on data from free and reduced-price lunch forms is outdated, since New York City has universal free meals.
Levine pointed out that another formula change, proposed by Hochul, is replacing eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch with a broader definition of economically disadvantaged students - which may more accurately reflect some students' needs.
get more stories like this via email