Following is an excerpt from legislative testimony submitted by Badger Institute President Mike Nichols on Monday in favor of a constitutional amendment that would restore legislative oversight of some federal spending in the state. You can read the full statement here.
Dear Chairman Wichgers and Members of the Assembly Committee on Constitution and Ethics,
The Badger Institute submits this testimony today in support of AJR 112 and a constitutional amendment assuring legislative approval of the spending of federal money in Wisconsin.
As you well know, Wisconsin every year becomes more dependent on federal funding. The current biennial budget includes over $26 billion in federal revenue – almost 30% of total appropriations and authorizations. While most of that money comes with federal requirements and mandates, the legislature does at least exercise some general, pro forma review through the budget process.
That fundamental oversight role does not apply to other federal funds and results in even less accountability, state or local control, and transparency. Our initial investigation of how federal CARES Act funding is being used in the state has already uncovered some absurd examples of waste.
In April of 2021, the Badger Institute made the first of several requests of 20 local governments in Wisconsin for detailed information about how it spent its shares of the more than $2 billion the state received in CARES Act funding. We were concerned that while the bill required every government entity to keep and share records of its spending with the state Department of Administration, there would be little oversight of the spending by the agency and little interest in accountability on the part of the state’s major media outlets.
Our concerns were well founded. Of the 20 county and local governments the Badger Institute originally contacted, half did not fulfill their legal obligation to provide detailed spending records. Officials for the other half who provided the records were either unwilling or unable to discuss how or why their communities spent the federal money the way they did.
|