WAY BAck, last spring, a governor from Arkansas named Asa Hutchinson went on a radio program on NPR. The journalist had her loaded questions ready to fire, buckshot style, and it might not have mattered how Gov. Hutchinson answered any of them.
The host asked why Gov. Hutchinson hadn't given a stay-at-home order for Arkansas, even though many governors at the time already had. To which the normally laid-back fella of a governor calmly explained: Schools were closed in Arkansas. As were hair salons, movie houses, sit-down restaurants, gyms and the national parks.
Stay-at-home orders in those other states really weren't. Because people still were able to go to the grocery, to the doctor, to parks. And there were the "essential workers." If Gov. Hutchinson did give a stay-at-home order, 700,000 Arkansans would still get up the next morning and go to work.
Such an order would, however, add 100,000 Arkansans to the unemployment rolls. So no thanks.
To which the reporter replied: "Do you want to be the last governor in the country to impose a statewide stay-at-home order?"
A lesser man, or editorial writer, would have responded with something snarky, possibly bleeped for a radio audience. But Asa Hutchinson is a cool cat, and simply told his inquisitor: "Well, I think you just ignored everything I said."
There were governors who shut down their states last year in an attempt to curb the rise of the covid-19 virus. There were governors who refused to do much of anything, leaving beaches open and inviting people to large gatherings in their states. (We won't mention specific states, but one's initials are "Florida.")
Then there were governors who took a moderate approach, kept options open, focused energy on what actually worked, fended off the press, and took political heat from their own party for actions that were meant to be best for the state.
Now those states are being punished.
Well, maybe not "punished" exactly, but not rewarded as much as those states that went all-in on shutdowns.
The Biden administration's covid relief/stimulus legislation plans to divvy up borrowed federal funds for a number of projects. And send state governments hundreds of billions in the Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund.
Unfortunately, a lot of the relief money will be allocated based on unemployment rates, giving states with the highest unemployment rates the most money per capita.
According to wire reports, the new funding formula would give billions more to states like California, New York and New Jersey, which basically shut down their economies in the spring. And for those states that took smaller steps--think Arkansas, or Iowa, or Nebraska--they'd get considerably less relief money. Not based on population size, mind you, but unemployment rates.
There is a debate to be had about whether sending relief money to state governments should even happen. State governments that have been responsible with their accounts and have a reputation of conservative budgeting don't need any kind of bailout. State governments that have a reputation of poor management, however, needed bailouts long before covid-19 came along, and this crisis seems a good excuse to help them escape their ill-considered schemes.
Why should Arkansas citizens pay to relieve Illinois' pension problems?
There weren't only two ways for governments to deal with covid-19. It wasn't a binary choice between shutdowns and Florida. Some states were more pragmatic, using common sense, and expert advice, to guide their particular economies through the pandemic. Some still do.
And now, those governors that stopped their economies cold are being rewarded. With billions. If you think that we think that doesn't sound exactly fair, we are happy you don't misunderstand.