GOP embracing aid many assailed
Republicans accept funds from Biden bill they fought
WASHINGTON — At her annual budget address this month, Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota blamed President Joe Biden’s economic policies for rising prices, derided the “giant handout” of federal stimulus funds and suggested that she had considered refusing the money over ideological objections.
But like many Republican officials, Noem has found it hard to say no to her state’s share of the $1.9 trillion pandemic relief aid that Democrats passed along party lines in March.
Noem explained to fellow legislators how critical those federal funds were to South Dakota and outlined how she would use some of the nearly $1 billion slated for her state to invest in local water projects, make housing more affordable and build new day care centers. For those questioning her choice to take the money, Noem, who has opposed COVID restrictions including shutdowns and mask mandates, said any pandemic-relief funds she rejected would have just gone to other states.
“It would be spent somewhere other than South Dakota,” Noem said. “The debt would still be incurred by the country, and our people would still suffer the consequences of that spending.” No state has declined the relief money, and if any had it would go back to the Treasury Department, not to other states.
Republican leaders across the country have been engaged in a similarly awkward dance over the past few months as they accept — and often champion — money from the $350 billion bucket of state and local aid included in the stimulus bill, which
passed Congress without a single Republican vote. In some states, like Ohio and Arizona, Republican governors are spending the funds while attempting to undercut the law that allowed the money to flow. Other governors are faulting Congress for not giving their state enough money.
And, like their counterparts in Congress, many Republicans have blasted Biden’s stimulus bill for fueling inflation, even as they take the funds, and criticized Democrats for pushing for additional government spending plans.
“I urge President Biden and Democrats in D.C. to turn off the spigot of out-of-control spending and get inflation under control,” said Gov. Greg Gianforte of Montana, whose state has used some of its $906 million in stimulus money to invest in nursing homes and return-to-work bonuses.
Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida complained this month that the federal formula for
allocating money to states based on their jobless rate had essentially penalized Florida for not imposing lockdowns and allowing businesses to remain open during the pandemic.
“I think you’d have to acknowledge that we got the short end of the stick compared to these other states,” DeSantis said.
Florida, which was allotted a total of $8.8 billion, has received about $3.4 billion, which DeSantis said would go toward infrastructure, transportation and workforce retention. The governor justified keeping the money by arguing that the federal government fueled economic disruption with shutdowns and vaccine and mask mandates that he opposed.
Despite his complaints, the cash cushion could help Florida build as much as $17 billion in reserves by the end of next year, according to DeSantis, and allow the state to afford to pay for priorities that are unrelated
to the pandemic. DeSantis proposed a gas tax holiday and an $8 million program to remove “unauthorized aliens” from the state. The money for that program would come from the interest generated by the state and local recovery funds, a spokesperson for DeSantis said.
A Treasury spokesperson said that the agency did not preapprove uses of funds but that any funds used “in violation of eligible uses” of Treasury’s rules could be clawed back by the federal government.
States, which have until 2026 to spend the stimulus money, are getting their share of federal funds at a moment when budgets are recovering faster than expected, with many governments awash in cash and announcing large surpluses.
It is a far different picture than what state officials expected at the beginning of the pandemic, when budget officers across the
United States warned of dire shortfalls as businesses shuttered, workers lost their jobs and health costs soared. But a stronger than expected economic recovery and trillions of dollars of relief money have left states with a new problem: how to spend it.
The Treasury Department gave states broad discretion over how the stimulus money can be deployed, but imposed limits on using funds to shore up public pension programs and restricted states from using relief funds to subsidize tax cuts. The tax cut prohibition angered several Republican governors, who argued it infringed on state sovereignty, and has led to a thicket of lawsuits.
The most contentious use of federal funds this year has been in Arizona, where Republican Gov. Doug Ducey used relief money to roll out two education programs intended to undercut mask mandates that were imposed by some school districts. A $163 million program provides up to $1,800 in additional funding per pupil in public and charter schools that are “following all state laws” and open for in-person instruction. Schools that required masks would not be eligible.
A separate $10 million program provides vouchers worth up to $7,000 to help poor families leave districts that require face coverings or impose other COVID-19related “constraints.”
The Treasury Department warned Ducey in October that the state could lose some of its $4.2 billion if it did not change the policy. Arizona rebuffed the request and a senior Treasury official said an administrative process is now underway to claw back some of the funds.
Other aspects of the relief package remain in limbo since it was enacted, including a $4 billion debt relief program aimed at helping minority farmers. That remains mired in litigation brought by some white farmers and conservative groups such as America First Legal, which is run by former Trump administration official Stephen Miller. They argue that the program, which was a centerpiece to the Biden administration’s racial equity agenda, unfairly excludes white farmers because of their race.
The debts of minority farmers, who faced years of discrimination by the Agriculture Department, have yet to be forgiven.
John W. Boyd Jr., the president of the nonprofit National Black Farmers Association, said he found it wrong that states like Texas, where the agriculture commissioner is suing to block the debt relief, are grappling with how to spend their relief money while Black farmers cannot access their aid funds and are facing foreclosure.
“I think it’s terribly unfair,” Boyd said. “But it’s a continuation of what we’ve endured in this country.”