Las Vegas Sun

March 18, 2024

SUN EDITORIAL:

It’s Nevada’s problem

Don’t blame Washington for the federal funding that the state receives

The Brookings Institution released a study this week with a poor finding for Nevada: The state is last in the amount of federal money it receives per capita. For longtime residents, that may not come as much of a surprise. The state has long been a “donor” state, one that gives more to the federal government in tax dollars than it receives.

As J. Patrick Coolican reported in Wednesday’s Las Vegas Sun, there is a good reason for that — the state is stingy. Federal programs award grants based on funding formulas that often require states to spend some of their own money to receive federal dollars. Because Nevada doesn’t spend much on its programs and services, it doesn’t get much of a return.

Nevada received $742 per person in the 2008 fiscal year, compared with $1,469 nationally, according to the Brookings study, which looked at several federal sources for state programs, including health, education and transportation.

“To be blunt about it,” said Nicholas Johnson, director of state fiscal policy for the Center on Budget Policy Priorities, “if Nevada wanted to capture more federal dollars, they should be cutting less and doing more on the revenue side and supporting those programs with a federal match.”

For example, in fiscal year 2008, Nevada was allocated $51 million from the federal government for Nevada Check Up, a children’s health program, but it only received $28.8 million. Why? The state spent $14.1 million on the program, which was below the threshold for full funding. Had the state spent another $11 million, Nevada would have received an additional $22 million in federal funding.

In Reno, a nutrition assistance program served just 1 percent of the children eligible, which left $57 million in federal money unclaimed.

Nevada officials note there are other issues with the funding formula than state spending, pointing to demographic factors that have put Nevada at a disadvantage. For example, when the economy was booming for nearly two decades until the recession hit in 2008, Nevadans were making wages above the national average, which put the state at a disadvantage for federal funding for some social programs targeted at the poor. But demographic factors shouldn’t mask the reality that the state has failed to qualify for funding because it won’t spend the money. That is intolerable because it severely limits the level of needed services the state provides.

Instead of seeing the Brookings’ findings for what they are, Republicans are trying to twist the study to shift blame to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. A Republican spokesman said the study proves that Reid doesn’t “deliver” for Nevada. That is simply wrong. The Brookings study only looked at programs with fixed funding formulas, which are essentially out of the reach of individual members of Congress.

Nonetheless, Reid and other members of the state’s congressional delegation have tried using earmarks to steer money to Nevada because the state fails to fare well in the funding formulas. The numbers show that Reid has more than delivered for Nevada — he is one of the best in Congress at helping his home state.

Taxpayers for Common Sense reported that Nevada is 10th in the nation per capita in federal funding from earmarks, and the group attributes that to Reid’s influence and position. In the current fiscal year, Reid secured $267.6 million in earmarks, which is more than the rest of Nevada’s congressional delegation combined.

The lack of federal funding for Nevada isn’t Reid’s fault, nor is it a Washington problem. The problem is the state’s. It is time for Nevada’s leaders to admit that the problem starts and ends here — and then work to change it for the good of the state.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy