Tham Nhũng Bằng Luật Pháp trong Quốc Hội Mỹ

Những bang bị đại dịch dữ dội nhất lại nhận được ít tiền cứu trợ liên bang nhất

Subject: Bằng_chứng_THAM_NHŨNG_BẰNG_LU ẬT_PHÁP_trong_
Quốc_Hội_Mỹ_!!!
From: Mike Wilson
Date: Wed, May 06, 2020 8:40 am

Nếu trong xóm có nhà cháy, thì điều cần thiết là phải xịt nước vào mấy nhà nào đang cháy dữ dội nhất !

Nhưng không, hệ thống chính trị Mỹ lại làm khác :

Những bang bị đại dịch dữ dội nhất như New York, New Jersey lại nhận được ít tiền cứu trợ liên bang nhất, trong khi những bang nhỏ hơn, ít bị dịch hơn
như Alaska, Hawaii, Montana và Wyoming lại nhận được dư thừa tiền trợ cấp liên bang !!!

Lí do :

Mỗi bang (dù nhỏ hay lớn đến đâu) đều chỉ có 2 thượng nghị sĩ, và những thượng nghị sĩ của những bang nhỏ này cần phải được nuông chiều, hối lộ để hội đủ 60 phiếu thuận (trên 100 phiếu) thì đạo luật cứu trợ mới được ban hành !

Tham nhũng nằm ngay trong tổ chức chính trị Mỹ khiến nó vận hành thiếu hiệu quả về tiền bạc !

nth-fl

______________________
States with few virus cases get big share of relief aid

https://apnews.com/48b8109fce0d922a8fb0f5fce20dee92

Alaska, Hawaii, Montana and Wyoming are not epicenters of the coronavirus pandemic. Yet these four states scored big this spring when Congress pumped out direct federal aid, while the two hardest-hit states, New York and New Jersey, got comparatively little given the vast numbers of cases and deaths they have seen.

An Associated Press analysis shows that some states with small populations like these took in an out-sized share of the $150 billion in federal money that was designed to address coronavirus-related expenses, when measured by the number of positive tests for the COVID-19 disease.

Their haul ranged from $2 million per positive test in Hawaii to nearly $3.4 million per test in Alaska. In Wyoming, with less than 600 positive cases, the $1.25 billion it received equates to 80 percent of its annual general state budget.

By comparison, New York and New Jersey received about $24,000 and $27,000, respectively, for each positive coronavirus test. Other states with high numbers of cases, including Massachusetts, Michigan and Illinois, received less than $100,000 per case.

“If there’s a fire, you don’t spray the whole neighborhood. You spray the house that’s on fire,” said Bill Hammond, director of public health policy at the Empire Center for Public Policy, a nonpartisan government watchdog in New York. He said it doesn’t make sense in this case to follow the normal political procedure of giving every state so much in the face of a public health crisis.

To be sure, the lowest population states often receive higher dollar amounts per capita when Congress doles out federal aid. That’s due in part to political reality: Small states have the same number of U.S. senators as more populous ones, and those senators lobby hard for their states’ interests (or they won't vote to pass any federal aid bill !)

The awards in the relief act passed in late March were based on population, but with a catch: Every state was to receive at least $1.25 billion, regardless of its size. Lawmakers said setting such a minimum was needed to reach a deal in a divided government.

In the coronavirus fight, the disproportionate share going to smaller states has consequences. States with high numbers of infections and deaths say they need that money for immediate expenses related to fighting an outbreak that threatened to overwhelm their hospital systems, from staff overtime to setting up makeshift hospitals.

The money for state governments is a slice of a $2.2 trillion federal stimulus. Governments are supposed to use it for new coronavirus expenses incurred from March 1 through Dec. 30. Under federal guidelines, the money cannot be used for other purposes, like making up for lost tax revenue to keep general government services running.

Some states with relatively few cases have been able to reopen their economies faster and have more options on how to spend the federal largess. Many are now trying to determine how they can spend the windfall while keeping within the federal guidelines.

Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon, a Republican, is proposing using a portion of the money to help businesses that have suffered because of government-imposed shutdowns and shrunken demand, even though other parts of the federal aid are already aimed at businesses.

Gordon noted neighboring Idaho — which received more than $600,000 per positive test — already has a similar system in place. In a public meeting streamed on video, Gordon said he knew the state would be watched carefully. After all, the state’s allocation is five times per capita what New York received and nearly 90 times as much per positive coronavirus test.

“There will be unduly high scrutiny on how Wyoming uses those funds,” Gordon said.

Funding under the stimulus package favors some states
A handful of small states with relatively few coronaviruses cases have received an outsized share of the federal Coronavirus Relief Fund. Chart updated May 4. Cursor over states for details

New York doesn’t have the luxury of trying to use the money to help cover a massive drop in tax revenue.

While it received billions of federal dollars for coronavirus-related expenses, it has received no money to help offset the loss of more than $13 billion in revenue, said Freeman Klopott, spokesman for the state budget division. The state is now considering $10 billion in cuts.

“New York state has been the epicenter of the pandemic and unfortunately has been home to about one-third of all U.S. COVID-19 related deaths, and federal funding provided so far has failed to recognize this reality,” Klopott said in a statement.

Steve Sweeney, New Jersey’s Democratic state Senate president, said if his state were among those with the fewest infections, “we’d give the money to somebody else.”

New York and other states with high numbers of cases have been lobbying Congress to provide more aid to state and local governments in a future coronavirus relief package

Sens. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican, and Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, are proposing $500 billion more for state and local governments. Under their plan, the first one-third of the money would be allocated based on population, the second on the number of coronavirus cases and the third on the toll it’s taken on government budgets.

Under their proposal, every state again would receive at least $1.25 billion — and this time with looser restrictions on how the money could be spent.

Menendez said the baseline amount ($1.25 billion) was a nod to political reality: “We need to get 60 votes in the Senate (to pass the bill)”
___

Mulvihill reported from Cherry Hill, New Jersey.