By ARTHUR VIDRO
By Arthur Vidro
You can learn a lot about a person by seeing what they do with money given to them. But people aren’t the nation’s only consumers.
It’s enlightening to see what states and cities do with their share of the pandemic funds bestowed by Uncle Sam.
In theory, the money is meant to facilitate fighting the coronavirus and to make up for money lost during shutdowns. Masks for city and state employees fit the bill. Certain programs, such as feeding the hungry, cut off from their usual sources, also can benefit. Bonuses for health-care and grocery-store workers also fit the bill. Also, payment to the suddenly unemployed.
But some entities have their own ideas.
In North Dakota, state officials in October tried to repurpose $16 million in federal coronavirus aid; they wanted to spend it on grants to encourage fracking instead of using it to clean up abandoned oil well sites.
South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster was rebuked in court for trying to spend federal COVID-19 money on private school tuition grants.
In Iowa last fall, Governor Kim Reynolds’ administration tried to convince federal auditors to reverse course and approve its plan to spend $21 million in coronavirus relief funds on a long-planned information technology update.
Sometimes, even if money is apportioned properly, the bookkeeping doesn’t keep up. In North Carolina, the state’s education department failed to monitor sufficiently whether more than $140 million in federal coronavirus relief money was used properly, according to a state auditor’s office.
Sometimes the recipient is neither a state nor city but a county. For instance, over in Delaware, a former Sheraton hotel was given new life as an emergency homeless shelter on December 15. New Castle County bought the hotel for $19.5 million using federal coronavirus relief funds. Kudos to New Castle for devising this thoughtful and creative use of relief money.
In Alabama, almost $2 million in grant money from coronavirus relief funds was allocated to assist veterans who are being treated for post-traumatic stress disorder and who are directly affected by COVID-19. Bravo.
But questionable spending took place in Uintah County in Utah, where government leaders are defending the decision to use about $500,000 in federal coronavirus relief funding to build a snow tubing and skiing hill near Vernal. Local business owners and residents are upset about the spending. Funny, I must have missed the headlines about pandemic-afflicted snow tubes.
Equally lame is Syracuse, New York’s decision to spend pandemic relief money on a mural celebrating local basketball legends. That’s not how relief money was meant to be spent. But as with people, if you give cities or states money they will often make ridiculous spending decisions.
But nationwide most spending is suitable.
Such as in Vermont, where the state’s court system plans to use nearly $13.6 million in federal money to ease a large backlog of cases caused by the pandemic.
In Georgia the state Board of Educations approved a plan in March to pay $1,000 bonuses to teachers and most other education employees, using $240 million in federal coronavirus relief money. Can’t argue with that.
In Sioux Falls, South Dakota, City Councilor Marshall Selberg pushed to appropriate $500,000 of COVID-19 relief funds toward a new triage and addiction center. He said the pandemic has exacerbated mental health issues, and he doesn’t want anyone to refrain from reaching out for financial reasons.
Over in Arizona, Governor Doug Ducey was asked to explain how his use of nearly $400 million in federal pandemic relief funds met Congress’s intent. Ducey used more than 20% of the $1.86 billion the state received in the spring of 2020 to backfill agency budgets, contributing to a major surplus that Ducey now wants to use to cut income taxes by $600 million a year.
Whether a state is allowed to use federal coronavirus relief funds to lower taxes is a question that hasn’t been definitively answered. But it could easily end up in the court system.
In Ohio, State Attorney General Dave Yost sued the federal government on March 17 over provisions in the latest pandemic relief package that prevent local governments from using aid to pay for tax cuts.
Whether the courts will take up this issue, or how the courts might rule, remains unknown.
Just as with people, the question of who decides how to spend the money has led to fighting. Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers killed a bill March 29 that would have given legislators oversight of the state’s share of billions of dollars in federal COVID-19 relief funds, instead announcing his own plan for distributing the money.
The Legislature in Michigan approved $652 million in proposed pandemic relief spending without bothering to negotiate with Governor Gretchen Whitmer or her administration. Whitmer vetoed the bill. The Legislature reapproved the funding. Whitmer vetoed it a second time.
On March 23, the Wisconsin state Senate voted to take control of the state’s share of the federal coronavirus stimulus package away from governor Tony Evers and instead give lawmakers the ability to decide how to spend the estimated $5.7 billion coming for state and local governments.
Sadly, these intrastate battles seldom are based on honest disagreements about spending procedures. Instead, it’s the typical juvenile sparring of our two major parties, each wanting control because it is convinced it is the “correct” party.
Which reflects poorly on our nation.
Arthur Vidro’s “EQMM Goes to College” appears in the May/June 2021 issue of Ellery Queen’s Mystery Magazine.
As your daily newspaper, we are committed to providing you with important local news coverage for Sullivan County and the surrounding areas.