Fact-Check: Does the American Rescue Plan Limit How States Can Spend Funds?

U.S. Rep. Mike Bost claimed the federal plan just signed into law doesn’t restrict spending on the $350 billion allocated to state and local governments. That leaves out important details.

U.S. President Joe Biden participates in a bill signing in the Oval Office on March 11, 2021, the day he signed the $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill into law. (Doug Mills-Pool/Getty Images)

After failing to stop the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 stimulus package from becoming law, Republicans are blasting the plan as a bailout for poorly managed Democratic states and cities.

A key piece of the criticism has been the stipulation that $350 billion be siphoned off for state and local governments, money Democrats who pushed through the legislation with no Republican support argue will blunt the pandemic’s fiscal fallout.

Rep. Mike Bost, a Republican from Murphysboro in southwestern Illinois, joined the national GOP chorus when in a WJPF radio interview he claimed there was nothing in the legislation limiting how states can spend the money.

“Where are the checks and balances in the issuing of these funds? Where is it that in there it says, it can only be used for A, B, C and D? It does not,” Bost said. “And that’s the problem.”

The law — dubbed the “American Rescue Plan” by President Joe Biden — is more flexible than previous aid packages in how money can be spent, experts told us. But it’s also not a free-for-all.

More leeway, but some limits

A relief bill passed last year, when Republicans controlled the White House and the U.S. Congress, earmarked $150 billion in state and local government aid for expenses tied only to the public health emergency. After last year’s law — dubbed the CARES Act — took effect, guidance from the federal Department of the Treasury explained funds could go beyond direct health care spending to cover items such as payroll for first responders and costs associated with caring for the homeless community.

The text of the latest aid package sets more flexible guidelines, allowing state and local governments to spend on the pandemic’s “negative economic impacts.” According to the language of the new law, funds can go toward increased pay for essential workers, preventing cuts to government services, and making investments in water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure as well. And unlike the 2020 CARES Act, it covers costs incurred through 2024.

Bost spokesperson Alex Naughton, responding to our inquiry in an email, said the Democrats’ package lacks “any meaningful guardrails” for how state and local governments can spend the funds.

“They so loosely defined the terms of what’s an acceptable use of funds … that literally almost any expense could qualify,” Naughton said. “This effectively creates a slush fund to use on whatever they want, as long as they paste a ‘pandemic response’ label on the package first.”

Experts agreed the new law provides considerable leeway, but they added that it does set some limits and outlines penalties for states and municipalities if they go beyond the legislation’s parameters.

Specifically, state and local governments can’t use funds to make pension payments or offset lost revenue from state and local tax cuts enacted since March 3, 2021.

In Illinois, the pension fund prohibition is particularly relevant given the state’s struggle to meet its pension obligations. Last April, Democratic state Senate President Don Harmon attracted national media coverage when he sent a letter to Illinois’ congressional delegation requesting $10 billion to help shore up the underfunded pension funds.

The prohibition on direct pension spending doesn’t rule out the possibility the federal aid could free up other state money to shift toward pensions. Audit provisions in the law, however, spell out how states would have to return the money if they violate the spending restrictions.

“If something is found to be outside the scope of the program, the [state or local] government's on the hook to pay that back,” said Amanda Kass, associate director of the Government Finance Research Center at the University of Illinois-Chicago’s College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs.

Our ruling

Bost said the American Rescue Plan “does not” include “checks and balances” on how state and local government funds can be spent.

Experts agreed the package is more permissive than previous state and local relief. It allows spending not only on public health but also on the economic impact of the pandemic as well as government services and infrastructure.

But it still contains two big restrictions: the money cannot pay down pensions or fill in holes created by tax cuts. State and local governments also have to report how they spend the funds, and if they are found in violation must pay the money back.

We rate Bost’s claim Half True.


HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.

Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

Sources

Radio appearance, U.S. Rep. Mike Bost, WJPF NewsRadio, March 15, 2021

Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Securities Act, 116th Congress

“COVID-19 Stimulus Bill: What It Means for States,” National Conference of State Legislatures, April 2, 2020

Blog post, Amanda Kass, associate director at the Government Finance Research Center at the University of Illinois-Chicago’s College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs, March 16, 2021

Coronavirus Relief Fund program guidance, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Jan. 15, 2021

H.R. 1319: The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, 117th Congress

Overview of the American Rescue Plan Act, National Conference of State Legislatures, March 9, 2021

Email exchange, Bost spokesperson Alex Naughton, March 16, 2021

Email exchange, Louise Sheiner, policy director for the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy at the Brookings Institution, March 16, 2021

Phone interview and email, Amanda Kass, associate director at the Government Finance Research Center at the University of Illinois-Chicago’s College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs, March 16, 2021

Phone interview, Kim Rueben, director of the State and Local Finance Initiative at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, March 17, 2021

“Did Charles Schumer and Nancy Pelosi sneak money into the COVID-19 relief bill?” PolitiFact, March 11, 2021

“State lawmakers seek more than $41B in federal coronavirus aid — including $10B pension bailout,” Chicago Sun-Times, April 18, 2020