I’m in a bad mood because of taxes and money and spreadsheets that are supposed to show one thing but actually show the opposite thing, so it seems fitting that today’s newsletter about government funding. The universe is funny! Life’s little synchronicities are a joy! The humor will probably hit me later on! (Am I laughing or crying?)
The Big Takeaway
Government does a lot of things, but its biggest responsibility is arguably to manage money. This is true, even though it sounds strange, even to me, the person making the argument. Still, it’s not really up for debate. Government can’t function without money, no matter what you think that function should be.
And that’s pretty much the only simple thing about government funding. It’s otherwise a complex system involving massive and fluctuating amounts of cash that are allocated differently from year to year, mostly depending on who’s in charge. Funding the programs you like is theoretically the entire purpose of running for office, after all, which means it’s fairly easy to figure out someone’s priorities: Just follow the money.
Take Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts, for example. We know he loves tax cuts, because he prioritizes them above just about everything else — even a years-in-the-making funding increase for health providers that lawmakers had already approved, the Nebraska Examiner reported.
The governor made that trade on Monday, vetoing a $52 million legislative package that would have granted a 15% rate increase for providers who care for children who are state wards, elderly nursing home residents and patients who are mentally ill and developmentally disabled.
Those rates will still go up by 5%, but advocates said that wasn’t nearly enough to fix chronic staffing shortages, raise salaries or expand facilities to accommodate a growing demand for services. But it will ensure that tax relief “succeeds,” according to Ricketts.
It may have succeeded anyway. The state can most likely support both the 15% increase and the tax relief, according to lawmakers, who called the veto a “disgraceful” choice that granted “tax breaks on the backs of providers.” The legislature was expected to decide whether to override that veto on Wednesday, a day after falling one vote short of overriding a different veto.
That bill, nixed by the governor at the end of March, would have required him to apply for $120 million in federal coronavirus relief money that he really, really, really didn’t want to apply for.
The funding was Nebraska’s share of a second round of federal aid distributed to states to help people catch up on rent and utility bills they couldn’t afford to pay during the pandemic. It would have helped qualifying households pay for up to a year of back rent and three months of future payments, but Ricketts turned it down because he thought it was “irresponsible” to use “taxpayer money to pay people’s rent without a good reason.”
Ricketts doesn’t hate all federal aid — he was all too happy to accept a similar pot of money to help people who own, rather than rent, their homes — but he’s steadfast in his distaste for this federal aid. After vetoing the legislation that would have forced him to apply for the money, he ratcheted up his rhetoric, saying accepting the aid would amount to an endorsement of “big government socialism where people are incentivized not to work but are instead encouraged to rely on government handouts, well after an emergency is over.”
It took a while, but he eventually got his way. Lawmakers tried — and failed — twice to override him, once in March before the application period ended and again on Tuesday, where the bill fell one vote short of passing, per the Examiner. Republicans who voted against it echoed the governor, saying it would be irresponsible to future generations to accept emergency money that was “borrowed from somewhere.”
Not really. The money is already allocated, so rejecting Nebraska’s portion doesn’t send it back to taxpayers — it just sends it to taxpayers in states that aren’t Nebraska. Some of it will end up in the state, but only because of updated federal guidance that allowed a handful of areas, mostly urban cities and counties, to apply for the assistance on their own. That means Tuesday’s vote leaves rural places out to dry, which one lawmaker said amounted to turning “our backs on the people who elected us.”
Lawmakers in New Mexico did the opposite on Tuesday, forfeiting $677 million in future tax revenue to send checks to state residents who are struggling to afford record-high gas prices. Residents will receive $500 apiece via two payments in the coming months, a balm for the sting of paying $4.14 per gallon at the pump, or $1.29 more than last year, Source NM reported.
Legislators also approved a bill that would send $20 million to some New Mexicans who don’t file tax forms. Those payments — $1,000 for married couples and $500 for individuals — would be available on a first-come first-served basis only for residents who do not file state tax returns and apply for funding from the state Human Services Department.
And that is a fairly small pool. About 135,000 people in New Mexico do not file state income tax forms, either because they make too little money to owe anything (72,000 people) or because they are undocumented (around 60,000 people). Republicans still opposed the measure, saying it amounted to a “giveaway” that would only encourage residents not to pay taxes.
Spare a dime? (Oregon) Thousands of low-income residents seeking state aid wait longer than they should … Thanks, Tesla? Nevada praised for transparency of economic development programs … (Louisiana) Entergy proposes its customers cover cost of backup generators for businesses … (Nevada) Worried time is running out, Democrats hope to rein in prescription drug costs … Pause on federal student loan repayments extended by Biden through Aug. 31
State of Our Democracy
Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose said Tuesday that he didn’t call for the impeachment of a state Supreme Court justice, he just said maybe impeaching her was the right thing to do, and that is totally different!
“The thing that I did was not call for anybody to be impeached,” he said. “I answered a question that was asked at a little breakfast gathering where I was with a group of supporters in Union County and what I said was, ‘It’s up to the state legislature.’ There are 33 senators and 99 representatives. If they gather evidence and hold that trial for an impeachment, if they decide as the people’s representatives to do that, then I don’t oppose that.”
The backpedaling came days after the Ohio Capital Journal received a recording of LaRose telling a group of county Republicans that state Supreme Court Justice Maureen O’Connor had “not upheld her oath of office.” He never explained exactly how she’d violated that oath, only that it was related to her participation in a bunch of rulings that struck down GOP-gerrymandered legislative maps as unconstitutional because they violated a constitutional provision that requires the maps to be, um, not gerrymandered.
O’Connor is a Republican, so she’s probably done a pretty good job of upholding her oath of office by acting apolitically in redistricting cases. She’s leaving the court at the end of the year anyway, so impeaching her probably wouldn’t be worth it unless Republicans could get it done quickly enough for a more GOP-y GOP replacement to rule on the maps. And they don’t have time for that, LaRose acknowledged on tape. Still, it would probably “feel really good.”
He argued Tuesday that his remarks shouldn’t matter because he doesn’t have the constitutional authority to impeach anyone — just the constitutional right to “express my opinion as a citizen, just like any of us can.”
“And I certainly have concerns that the court has delved into really the politics of this more than they should have,” said LaRose, who doesn’t oppose impeaching a judge because she agreed that the redistricting commission couldn’t do its literal one job of not gerrymandering legislative maps. “But that’s a choice up to the General Assembly and certainly not a choice I get to make. I was simply expressing my opinion.”
From the Newsrooms
- (New Hampshire) For sale: A beautiful property with ‘faults’
- Missouri Supreme Court declines to immediately hear appeal of COVID ruling
- Georgia lawmakers leave gambling, medical marijuana, abortion pill laws unchanged
- (Minnesota) No charges filed against police officer who shot and killed Amir Locke
- (North Carolina) Standing their ground outside the abortion clinic
One Last Thing
A U.S. congressman was attacked by a fox while walking to the U.S. Capitol on Monday evening. Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.) tried to fend off the fox with his umbrella, which fled when U.S. Capitol Police approached. Bera said he had no visible puncture wounds but “some abrasion” and will undergo a series of four rabies shots “out of an abundance of caution.”
Capitol officials warned lawmakers about the encounter, saying there are “possibly several fox dens” near the Capitol. I will leave you to make your own Fox News jokes.
This edition of the Evening Wrap published on April 6, 2022. Subscribe here.
