Politics, Moderate



In this crisis, states should get a lot of federal money

Steve Chapman on

The economic collapse precipitated by the coronavirus pandemic has been a disaster for a multitude of individuals and companies, and the federal government has wisely showered them with money to offset their losses. But the downturn has also been a disaster for states, which don't get the same love in Washington.

When the House passed a $3 trillion relief bill with $1 trillion for state, local and tribal governments, only one Republican voted yes. President Donald Trump has threatened to veto the measure in the unlikely event that it gets through the Senate.

The opponents argue that states have fiscal woes because they have been irresponsible. Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., said that a federal relief package would mean "bailing out liberal politicians who cannot live within their means."

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky suggested that states with big budget gaps consider bankruptcy. Trump claimed, "It's not fair to the Republicans because all the states that need help, they're run by Democrats in every case" -- which is not true.

Scott may have forgotten all the times that taxpayers far from the Atlantic Ocean have bailed out Floridians in the aftermath of hurricanes. Blue states, by the way, generally pay more in federal taxes than they get back, with the excess going to -- can you guess? -- red states.

It's a bit confounding to hear sermons about frugality from federal policymakers, who more than doubled the federal debt between 2008 and 2019 -- and then approved measures that were expected to generate trillions in additional deficits. States are constrained on spending because most are required to balance their budgets. The federal government is not.


This crisis has walloped state and local governments like a Category 5 storm. It has decimated revenue collections from sales, income and excise taxes, because companies have lost customers and workers have lost income.

A Scrooge would say that when your income declines, you should simply reduce your spending to match. But that's not a sensible option for states, because the demands on them have grown so drastically.

They face higher costs for Medicaid and public health programs, as well as the expense of protective equipment, ventilators and tests. They have to spend more on unemployment insurance and food assistance for people who have lost jobs.

State and local governments could lay off public employees, but most of those perform tasks that are helpful at the moment. Who should be furloughed: Employees who process unemployment applications? Those who administer Medicaid payments? Police? Firefighters?


swipe to next page
Copyright 2020 Creators Syndicate, Inc.


blog comments powered by Disqus

Social Connections


Darrin Bell Dan Wasserman Kirk Walters Dana Summers Al Goodwyn Ken Catalino