Skip to main content

How to Spend $47 Million in 4 Months


The CARES Act passed by Congress has a provision to give funds to state and local governments. Out of this, Oklahoma County has been given the onerous task of spending $47 million by the end of the year. The caveat being all expenses must be related to COVID-19. Any money not used must be returned to the federal government. While the county is undoubtedly receiving a plethora of self-interested letters requesting a portion of the funds, there are a few ways to spend the money to the benefit of all Oklahoma County residents. This should not be read to condone spending money just because it is available. Government officials must remember that the money they spend comes directly from the taxpayer, and should only be spent in ways that benefit all or most of society.

Oklahoma County could also use the money to give grants to small businesses that were forced to shut down or otherwise damaged by the government’s actions related to COVID-19. Small businesses could use the money to avoid layoffs, rehire staff, and stay afloat as the economy recovers. They could also use the money to fulfill any government mandates related to COVID. There should be rules limiting which businesses qualify for this assistance. Businesses that were allowed to remain fully operational during the shutdowns would not qualify for this assistance, mainly larger businesses like Wal-Mart. This program could be extended to non-profits as well.

The CARES Act allows for funds to be transferred from the county to school districts. Taking some of that money to help schools in Oklahoma County prepare for in-person education would be a good use of that money. Schools can use the money for additional cleaning supplies. The money could fund hiring and training a pool of substitute teachers that could fill in for any teachers that fall ill or are at-risk. Only school districts that reopen fully would be eligible to receive the extra funding. This will further incentivize schools to reopen. The reopening of schools will help parents get back to work, which is a further boon to the economy.

One glaring change brought on by COVID-19 was a rise in mail in ballots for the primary election. Given the state’s experience with State Question 802, where the mail-in vote was highly lopsided and uninformed compared to the larger overall in-person outcome, alleviating the public's anxiety about voting in person should be a top priority. Ensuring proper precautions are taken at election sites would make voters more comfortable visiting their polling places, which would reduce the risk of tampering with mail-in ballots. Particular measures might include providing testing and protective materials for poll workers, having extra poll workers, and putting cleaning supplies in each voting booth. Ensuring the sanitary conditions will help secure the sanctity of the general election. This should be a top priority for Oklahoma.

Some of the money could be used to protect residents in nursing homes. Nursing homes house the population most vulnerable to COVID, the elderly who often have other maladies that make them particularly susceptible. Residents and caregivers should be tested frequently. Any caregivers that test positive should get partial pay and self-quarantine until they are no longer contagious. Residents who test positive should be moved immediately to a hospital where they can receive proper care. Money should also be used to ensure nursing homes are properly staffed and have the proper protective equipment.

While the connection to COVID-19 is less clear, an argument can be made that the County could use some of the funds to improve roads and traffic lights. Making travel less aggravating would help get people out of their homes and give a badly needed boost the local economy. The state of roads and bridges in Oklahoma is dismal, the American Society of Civil Engineers gives Oklahoma roads a grade of D and bridges a D+. A grade of D means the infrastructure is in poor condition and there is a strong risk of failure. With the influx of CARES money, a lot of work could go into repairing failing infrastructure in the county. The case could be made for repairing roads near hospitals which would free funds to improve other roads. 

The county has received a windfall, but it must be careful to spend it wisely and in accordance with the principles of good governance. The federal deficit falls on Oklahomans and Californians alike. If Oklahoma County cannot use the money in ways that will benefit all its residents, it has a duty to return the funds. The primary goal in spending the money should be economic recovery, with a secondary goal of ensuring safety for citizens.


Spencer Cadavero is a Research Associate at 1889 institute and can be reached at scadavero@1889institute.org.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

About Those Roads in Texas

A s Sooner fans head south for the OU-Texas game next week, they will encounter a phenomenon most of us are familiar with: as you cruise across the Red River suddenly the road gets noticeably smoother. The painted lane stripes get a little brighter and the roadside “Welcome to Texas” visitors’ center gleams in the sunlight, a modern and well-maintained reminder of how much more money the Lonestar State spends on public infrastructure than little old Oklahoma. Or does it? Why are the roads so much, well… better in Texas? Turns out, it isn’t the amount of money spent, at least not when compared to the overall size of the state’s economy and personal income of its inhabitants. Research conducted by 1889 Institute’s Byron Schlomach reveals that Oklahoma actually spends significantly more on roads than Texas as a percentage of both state GDP and personal income . And that was data from 2016, before Oklahoma’s tax and spending increases of recent years. The gap is likely gr...
Read more

The Problem of Diffuse Costs and Concentrated Benefits

Do you ever find yourself observing a seemingly illogical government program , spending decision, or other strange practice and ask “how is it that no one has fixed that?” If you are like me, you encounter this phenomenon regularly. This often takes the form of a curious headline (Save Federal Funding for the Cowboy Poets!) that most people see and can’t believe is real. I would like to suggest that this phenomenon often results from the problem of diffuse costs and concentrated benefits. To understand this concept, consider a hypothetical law that assessed a $1 tax on everyone in the United States with the proceeds to be given to one individual for unrestricted use as he sees fit. The people harmed by such a law—the individual taxpayers—will not be very motivated to spend the time and effort to convince Congress to change the law. They might resent the dollar taken from them for a silly cause they don’t support, but the lost dollar isn’t worth the trouble of doing something about i...
Read more

No License, Sherlock: Licensing for Private Investigators

What does a private investigator do? Surely, we’re all familiar with various movies and shows featuring the exciting adventures of Sherlock Holmes or Magnum PI. However, reality is often disappointing, and the fact is private investigation is usually dull and relatively safe. Private investigators are tasked with conducting surveillance and fact-finding missions for their clients, but they gain no special powers to do so.  My recent paper deals with the licensing of private investigators. Oklahoma’s private investigator licenses are governed by the Council of Law Enforcement Education and Training (CLEET), which follows the advice of a committee made up of people who run private investigative agencies. Improved competition is not likely to be in the best interest of these agencies, so it is questionable whether they should be in a gate-keeping position they could easily turn to their advantage. Private Investigators must undergo a series of trainings and pas...
Read more

The Real Reason Health Care Prices Keep Rising

Much has been made of the healthcare crisis of late, but very little of it addresses two of the biggest financial problems with the system: the third party payer problem and the reality that health insurance bears no resemblance to true insurance.   Insurance is a pooling of risk. The odds are that just over one in every 250 people will contract cancer in the next year. Cancer is an incredibly expensive disease to treat. So if 250 people got together and put aside enough savings to cover one case of cancer between them, they have effectively pooled their risk, and, on average, they should have enough to cover the statistical cancer they as a group are likely to incur. This risk pooling works better in larger numbers. A statistician would be unsurprised if one group of 250 had four cases of cancer while three others had none. But a single group of 10,000 people is much more likely to remain near the nationwide average, and if each of the 10,000 people pays just a little ext...
Read more