We now know the story of how more than $2 trillion of early COVID stimulus was spent. It’s a tale of favoritism, delays, and partisanship. Before we spend another $2 trillion, as the Biden administration wishes, we should talk about how the CARES Act’s relief package was spent. The results aren’t pretty.
See, while the direct checks to people grabbed headlines, the vast majority of the money spent early last year was not used on direct payments to citizens. Around $330 billion of discretionary money was entrusted to state governments to divide the funds fairly across their states. That’s not what happened. Reports show state governments distributing COVID relief have overwhelmingly favored big cities and large counties over smaller districts.
For example, Colorado was given around $1.6 billion in relief, of which rural counties were handed a mere $275 million — half of what they requested. On average, large counties received $176 per person for COVID-19 testing and local health department assistance. Rural areas got only $109 per capita. What did the Colorado governor use the extra money for? Public schools.
Rural voters in Colorado can take some solace from the fact that they are not the only ones who have been unfairly treated. A nationwide report showed that only 10% of relief funds trickled down to local governments, at the expense of nearly 19,000 small municipalities. That report was published last August, but months later, governors continue to play favorites with relief funding.
Just last month, a state audit showed that California disproportionately favored larger counties. More than half of the $1.3 billion that the California Legislature allocated to county governments was sent to the biggest 16 counties. The other half was divided among the 42 remaining districts. Yes, larger counties need more money because they have more people, but even after adjusting for population size, smaller counties got just half the money big cities were allocated.
While Gov. Gavin Newsom of California may have turned a blind eye to rural counties, the virus has not. For instance, Imperial County, a county with only 188,000 people, averaged 3 times more COVID-19 cases than Los Angeles, a county with 10 million citizens. James Gallagher, a California assemblyman, commented that “the way that funds are distributed tends to favor the Bay Area and Los Angeles, where the majority of the legislature are from, right?”
Not only do rural counties get less money, but the money they do receive comes late, often months after urban centers receive help. The CARES Act was signed in March. In June, 55 of the smallest Florida counties were still waiting to receive the $1.2 billion they were allocated. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Florida’s city centers received their federal funding months before. This same story has been repeated across the nation.
Rural counties and small cities were economically stagnating before the pandemic, and these communities have been severely affected by COVID-19. A study led by researchers at Yale University found particularly dramatic effects on part-time workers and recorded an increase in informal labor.
Rural communities have suffered a disproportionate number of deaths from the coronavirus, adjusted for population. They’re dealing with the same pandemic. They’re just doing so on significantly thinner budgets. This financial disadvantage may be catching up to them. Rural areas reported record numbers of fatalities in December.
Congress will likely pass a stimulus package totaling another $2 trillion, on top of the more than $4 trillion we have already spent on financial relief. This time, let’s make sure we take care of our country folk. People living in rural counties deserve to be treated the same as those who live in metropolitan cities. Political favoritism is a problem no matter the circumstances, but it’s downright deadly during a pandemic.
Sean-Michael Pigeon is a contributor to Young Voices and a senior at Yale University studying political science. He has worked in Washington, D.C., on regulation and is currently employed as a research assistant.
