Last winter, South Dakota state government refused to apply for millions in federal funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 to help local governments improve cybersecurity because of “substantial administrative burdens” and “lack of clarity” in the application process. 48 other states found the State and Local Cybersecurity Grant Program sufficiently clear, unburdensome, and beneficial to justify applying.
This spring, South Dakota state government refused to apply for $3 million in federal funding from the Inflation Reduction Act to study, plan for, and mitigate climate change because taking that money on top of $3.47 billion in federal funds already propping up the state budget would worsen inflation. Such inflationary concerns evidently paled in comparison to the benefits of saving their economies and people from climate change for the 46 other states and dozens of local governments, including Rapid City, that applied for Climate Pollution Reduction Grants.
Last week, South Dakota refused to apply, for the second year in a row, for what appears to be $6.5 million in federal funding from the Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer program (started in 2020, set to become the ongoing Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer next year) to provide 54,000 South Dakota kids on food stamps an extra $120 to cover groceries while school is out. Only six other states take South Dakota’s position that feeding hungry kids during the summer is just too hard:
We asked a spokesperson for Gov. Kristi Noem why the pandemic EBT grant was not accepted. Ian Fury responded with the following statement:
“Federal money often comes with strings attached, and more of it is often not a good thing. Because of South Dakota’s record low unemployment rate and the administrative burden associated with running this program, we declined these particular federal dollars.”
We asked the USDA about the “strings” or parameters. It includes sharing of information between three state organizations.
“Between school districts, the state education agency that administers the school meals programs, and the agency that administers SNAP, the majority of states have made this work,” said Vega.
…42 percent of Sioux Falls public school students would have received the EBT funds this summer.
Percentages range from 18 to over 80 percent across the state.
In addition to South Dakota, Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas have not joined the EBT program.
Should South Dakota opt into the program next summer, the state would need to cover 50 percent of the administrative cost, while 100 percent would have been covered to establish and administer the program this year [Beth Warden, “54,000 South Dakota Children Miss Out on Summer Food Program,” KSFY, 2023.07.18].
That’s strange—we didn’t find it too hard to feed hungry kids during the summer in 2020 and 2021, when we accepted Uncle Sam’s Pandemic EBT. The feds are covering all administrative costs this year, so we wouldn’t have to dip into our $96.8-million surplus to manage the program until next year.
Hunger, climate change, and hackers are real threats to the general welfare. Most states recognize those threats and are willing and able to take and manage federal funds to address those threats. But South Dakota, which takes billions in federal subsidies to prop up its budget and economy, seems to be grandstanding against these mere millions for no apparent justifiable practical reason. South Dakota could feed more kids in the summer, figure out ways to lessen the damage from climate-change-boosted storms and floods, and help small towns fight off ransomware and other hacking. Instead of making those real differences and doing real good, South Dakota state government would rather sit on the sidelines and pout.
“ South Dakota, which takes billions in federal subsidies to prop up its budget and economy, seems to be grandstanding against these mere millions for no apparent justifiable practical reason.” – concise comment Cory.
Maybe South Dakota “leadership” is opposed to feeding existing, hungry children, but is rabidly preoccupied with the status of every woman’s womb and assuring every zygote gets born? And, by golly, how would “wypipo” feel if some of those potential Summer EBT recipients were NOT shiny, happy White children, but rather “Brown?”
Jfc. It’s all a bunch of hate and people need to pop their eyes open and get a clue. This should piss everyone off enough to get the gop off the state payroll so we can actually do the peoples’ work over Ian Fury’s drama tweeting and condescending rhetoric that makes KN throw him a treat.
That’s my suggestion to pair with my disgruntlement. And if you’re not disgruntled over all this hate we see from the state, you need to wash the grease off your hands and check your bellybutton for your missing chicken wing you blamed the dog for taking, ya ff.
Fury said: “Federal money often comes with strings attached, and more of it is often not a good thing.”
Of course, federal money comes with strings attached. Does he expect free money with no accountability? He sounds like a teenager. Hey, Mr. Fury, lots of state money comes with strings attached, too. That’s actually a good thing. You want accountability with taxpayer dollars.
Next up is the second part of the statement, which is, at least, something we can debate. The federal government subsidizes a lot of people I don’t think deserve the money. Look at all the cash being ladled out to the wealthy folks behind nuclear power. Nuclear power would fail without massive government subsidies. I think Fury’s philosophy of “more of it is often not a good thing” is correct when it comes to the money taxpayers are expected to pay to Bill Gates and other billionaires for nuclear power, as just one example. Fury’s party is busy trying to hand out even more money to these folks beyond what Biden has injudiciously handed out already. Fury only gets conservative with the federal money when it goes to kids with empty stomachs.
Fury’s former employer, Gym, “I don’t care what happens to wrestlers at Ohio State” Jorfan proves daily why Democrats refused to allow him on their J 6th committee hearings. He is incompetentm doen’t want the truth to come out and is just tossing accusations with absolutely no basis of truth at Democratic targets.Just like virtually all magat pols from drumpf on down.
Remember, magats will accept federal largesse as long as it is a lump sum with no strings attached for the programs the money was meant for. magats are sure the wealthy wouild make far better use then undeserving poors and POC.
Making the wealthy wealthier, afterall, raises eveyone’s average income across the board.
Let them eat white bread spread with lard and sprinkled with sugar as poor kids did in my day.
Nuclear energy is good. It is very good. I thank the government for ladling out cash to nuclear power people.
Were the “strings attached” feeding the hungry children that SD leaves unfed? That certainly is a string that the Governor would not tolerate — or at least her campaign would. For someone so “eager” to help when it comes to repealing the food tx, but unwilling to help with direct benefits, it seems that all this is political posturing — not effective governance to improve the lives of constituents.