The COVID Bailout of State and Local Governments Was Unnecessary
Well over half of those funds remain unspent, according to a new Government Accountability Office report.

Two years after Congress authorized a hugely expensive bailout of state and local governments as part of a COVID-era emergency spending bill, most of the money still hadn't been spent.
Perhaps the bailout wasn't even needed in the first place?
In a new report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that states (including Washington, D.C.) had spent just 45 percent of the funding they had received through the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds program, a $350 billion line item within the $2 trillion American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), which passed in March 2021. Local governments had reported spending just 38 percent of their funds received through the same program.
Those figures are based on mandatory reports filed quarterly with the Treasury and reflect spending through the end of March 2023, two years after the bailout was approved by Congress.
"The new GAO study confirms that the ARPA spending was not needed," Chris Edwards, chair of fiscal studies at the Cato Institute, tells Reason. "By the fall of 2020, it was clear that the states were in good fiscal shape and not facing Armageddon as many policymakers were claiming. They did not need federal handouts."
Edwards had argued against the bailout of state and local governments during the pandemic, and he wasn't alone. Before the American Rescue Plan passed, there was widespread skepticism about the proposed bailout, in part because three other pandemic-era spending bills had already sent about $360 billion in aid to states and localities.
The effectiveness of that spending has been repeatedly called into question. In a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper published in June 2022, a trio of researchers found that pandemic-era aid distributed to state and local governments had cost taxpayers about $855,000 per job saved. The stimulus spending had only "a modest impact on government employment and has not translated into detectable gains for private businesses or for states' overall economic recoveries," concluded University of California, San Diego economists Jeffrey Clemens and Philip Hoxie and American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Stan Veuger, the paper's three authors.
"Even the unstated assumption behind these handouts—that Washington should step in if there are dips in state revenue—is badly flawed," wrote David Ditch and Richard Stern, policy analysts at the Heritage Foundation, in a report last month that highlighted the state and local bailout among other wasteful COVID-era programs. "Many states are fiscally mismanaged, and federal bailouts enable them to avoid much-needed discipline."
Indeed, as Reason has reported, a good chunk of the state and local bailout funds were put to questionable use, including subsidizing money-losing, government-owned golf courses. Lots of other governments used the stimulus cash to pad the paychecks of public employees.
Iowa spent $12.5 million of its $4.5 billion cut of the federal bailout on a new baseball stadium near the Field of Dreams movie set. Because that's an essential public health issue, of course.
The new GAO report adds to that list of seemingly frivolous spending. It points out that Michigan "reported spending $25.6 million on a travel marketing and
promotional campaign," allegedly to "respond to the impacts of COVID-19 on tourism." Louisiana, meanwhile, reported spending $115 million to construct roads and bridges.
Tourism is nice and roads are in some ways an essential government function, but the emergency COVID spending was meant to help states address an immediate public health crisis—or to offset the costs of it. It's not at all clear how highway construction was a victim of the pandemic, and "travel marketing" is something that shouldn't be funded with taxpayer dollars no matter where they come from.
If there ever was a need for emergency aid to states and localities, it has obviously long since passed. Edwards points out that state and local tax revenue in the first quarter of 2023 was up 25 percent over the first quarter of 2020—which immediately preceded the onset of the pandemic.
"The states have full treasuries, and so they should give any remaining bailout funds back to Washington," he recommends.
Whether that happens remains to be seen. It's probably more likely that, with so much pandemic-era emergency cash still waiting to be spent, state and local governments will find more silly ways to blow through piles of taxpayer money they never should have gotten their hands on in the first place.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Umm, who else is going to rescue New York, Illinois, and California? Certainly us Iowans and others care about the retirement funds of their civil servants. Right?
/S
It was entirely necessary in order to transfer vast amounts of federal tax dollars to ailing blue states.
When will Reason stop talking about government policies as if the stated reasons for their adoption are the actual reasons? How about you do some journalism and figure out exactly how this bill happened: who paid off who with what political favors, which politicians benefited the most, which politicians voted for it in order to get cushy jobs after their retirement, etc? But, oh no, that would mean rocking the boat. So much easier to play the good naive little libertarian and pretend that politics is about well intentioned but sometimes unsuccessful policies. Either you are a fool or you are complicit.
You may be missing what may be a subtle cynicism on the part of Reason writers. It's possible to have a greater impact on readers by using a softer approach and allowing those who might be persuaded to come to the obvious conclusion that you and I already reached long ago.
That would require actual curiosity on the part of the unbelievers, of which I see zero evidence, and less evidence that will change.
Some people do sometimes change their minds.
Mostly Crowder protestors.
Earn money in USA, high scores from trusted resources. Work at your own pace. Regular Payments. Search in different job categories. Work anywhere on your vs03 computer, laptop or mobile phone. Update your profile at any time.
.
.
Detail Here———->>> http://Www.Smartcash1.com
Reason campaigned for Biden, and continues campaigning for the statist totalitarian left.
I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart
OPEN GO HERE↠↠↠ http://Www.DailyPro7.COM
Well, MWAocdoc, you prove time and again that you are a gullible, ignorant fool.
The ARA was allocated according to unemployment rates, which happened to favor blue states at the time. The individual checks that went out favored red states, as it happens.
Red states got plenty of free money despite their ideological opposition to it. They should have sent it back and pulled themselves up from their bootstraps.
Sounds like you are rationalizing wealth transfers to democrats.
Sounds like you're saying it's not fair for people not to get money they object to in the first place.
Well, it isn't. Being opposed to a spending/welfare program does not oblige one to cut off one's nose to spite their face. "fair" means everyone is treated the same.
I see my inference was correct.
It is immoral to take from one and give to another preferred group.
^THIS - Right here Tony..... It would be far more correct to not have [Na]tional So[zi]alism dishing out others stolen money and just having blue states doing their own theft/socialism outside of the Union of States realm. For that matter make it county/city if you really want to be fair about it and not so much of a criminal.
As the article so wildly point out: "Many states are fiscally mismanaged, and federal bailouts enable them to avoid much-needed discipline."
How do you figure that individual checks favor (or not) any state? They were sent to individuals, not states.
That was only a small part of the Nazi-bills.
Did vast amounts of money not get transferred to blue states? See, the advocates of such policies don't care if red states also benefit; to the contrary, that gives them political cover and allows them to scream "hypocrisy" when conservatives say "we don't want this".
And fools like you actually fall for that transparent propaganda. Corrupt leftists couldn't stay in power without partisan idiots like you.
Complicit.
Bingo.
Playing devil's advocate here once again, but spending less than half of the money made available to them has no logical connection to whether the spending that they DID do was "necessary" or not. One could make the case that if they had "needed" mor money it would have been available. It's hard to attack the illogical nature of government regulations and deficit spending when our own allies aren't very logical in their attacks.
None of it was necessary. We should have followed Sweden' model - which was exactly what all of our pandemic plans said we should have done at the start.
Perhaps the bailout wasn't even needed in the first place?
Or perhaps it was poorly targeted. How many businesses that were wiped out are back in business?
It was perfectly targeted.
Small businesses owned and run by independent citizens, largely republican, were ruined, and large businesses run by democrat party stooges were preserved.
"Everything is happening exactly as I have foreseen", or something like that.
Never let a good crisis go to waste.
“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” – Rahm Emanuel, former Mayor of Chicago and Obama White House Chief of Staff.
Yeah, I couldn't be bothered to look up the quotation.
99% of all government response to Covid was unnecessary.
People had sniffles so let's destroy civilization.
We must DO something!!!
This is something, so let’s do it.
Hon, please don't. COVID was real. I worked in a front-line health care position the entire time. People *died*. It wasn't just the "sniffles".
The COVID everything was unnecessary.
As it always is with Leftard ideas. It was Anti-USA (UN-Constitutional) and Pro-Nazi ([Na]tional So[zi]al[ism]) ... because that's what Criminal Nazi's do over and over and over again.
Totalitarianism never changes, never goes away. It dons new guises, but is always abusive, dysfunctional, and malicious.
I have received $19734 last month by working 0nline from home in my spare time. I am a full time college student and just doing this easy home based j0b for 3 to 4 hrs a day. This j0b is easy to do and its earnings are awesome. Every peraon can now start making easy cash right now by just follow details here......
https://www.dailypro7.com
"roads are in some ways an essential government function"
Has Reason stopped even *trying* to be a libertarian publication?