South Dakota House fails to override child care subsidy veto from governor

The South Dakota House of Representatives failed to override the first veto of Gov. Larry Rhodens administration on March 13 at the Capitol in Pierre.

Lawmakers in the House spent around half an hour debating the possibility of revivingHouse Bill 1132s attempt to expand child care subsidies for child care workers and overruling the governors Wednesday veto.

In the end, the vote to overturn the veto failed 27-43. Because of its failure in the House, there was no need for the Senate to consider it. March 13 was the final day of the annual legislative session, except for a day on March 31 to consider any further vetoes from Rhoden, who is still considering bills.

HB 1132s backers took issue with Rhodens characterization of the bill as an unfair expansion of a social safety net program to people in a specific field.

Parents in South Dakota with incomes at 209% or less of the federal poverty level are eligible for child care tuition assistance. The bill vetoed on Wednesday would have bumped that eligibility figure up to 300% for full-time child care workers.

Child care workers who cant afford their own child care bills, the reasoning goes, cannot stay on the job and watch the kids of parents who cant work without child care.

The hope would be for South Dakota to keep more child care workers on the job.

When child care workers leave the workforce, the crisis deepens, said the bills sponsor, Rep. Erin Healy, D-Sioux Falls.

Opponents said they agreed with the governor. They didnt see the subsidy as fair to other families, worried about a permanent subsidy the state couldnt afford, and suggested that the bill would tip the scales in favor of one approach to child care.

Rep. John Hughes, R-Sioux Falls, argued that lawmakers cant simultaneously be conservative and supportive of subsidies for a specific type of worker.

Thats why I respect the governor. I think hes well-stated the answer, Hughes said. Dont buy into this. Dont buy into this idea that were going to start subsidizing a group of, God bless them, child care workers. Its just a bad precedent.