If you’ve ever wanted a prime example of government overreaction, let me introduce you to the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2020. Back in the early panic-fueled days of March 2020, while many Americans were stocking up on essentials, Congress was deliberating on how to throw an astronomical $8.3 billion at the coronavirus problem. That's billion with a 'B.' This sky-high sum was signed into law by then-President Donald Trump to fight the emerging pandemic. The Act primarily sought to pour buckets of cash into the Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
But the devil is always in the details, and while some of the money went to developing treatments, like vaccines, you’ve got to wonder how much of that could be described as pork-barrel politics—good old-fashioned bureaucratic waste. So what exactly did this act cover? Oh, just a potpourri of emergency healthcare reserves, funding for local labs, and, of course, the possibility for the HHS Secretary to declare a national health emergency. But you really didn’t need an Act for that last bit, did you?
Those who cheer whenever Congress throws money at a problem may need to sit down. Only about $3 billion was dedicated to research and development of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics. Remember, this was billed as supplemental, meaning it's on top of whatever they were already spending. This should provoke any taxpayer who sees $8.3 billion of their hard-earned money being spent on bureaucratic red-tape and maybe a few new office chairs and lavish conferences.
Another eye-popping allocation saw $2.2 billion designated to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Funny thing is, considering the mixed messages and ever-changing guidelines that followed, you’d think we spent that money on the world’s most expensive game of telephone. But worry not, the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund also got a hefty $950 million; think of it as a rainy-day fund, except it only rains bureaucracy.
And then there’s the support to state and local efforts. They got a piece of the pie too, to the tune of roughly $1 billion. This was supposedly to bolster their preparation and response to the coronavirus terror. Unfortunately, the states that most wildly mismanaged their responses got more cash to burn through with little oversight.
Not to be outdone, some funds were also allocated for the global fight against COVID-19. Our tax dollars traveled far and wide, carrying American goodwill to international health-response activities. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) managed to slip in an argument for requiring funds, riding on America’s broader global responsibility narrative.
Some savvy folks might argue that at least some of this went to things with an immediate public health impact. It’s true—the act included measures to alleviate supply chain issues and adjust healthcare resources. But one might question whether this funding was distributed effectively or whether it sputtered away in bureaucratic fog.
The bill also contained provisions allowing Medicare providers to extend telehealth services to seniors nationwide. Critics jump with glee here, citing increased access to healthcare in rural regions. While it’s undeniable telehealth soared in usefulness during the pandemic, it's hard to claim this vision required congressional edicts dictating price tags onto our grandchildren.
Just like any other massive spending act, it came with its fair share of criticisms and controversies—a favorite playground for those supporting minimal government interference. The Act was like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. Necessary for who?
This Act opened the floodgates for more extensive spending bills, signaling our wily government’s readiness to spend, spend, spend. What began as an $8.3 billion congressional first-responder rapidly inflated into trillions of dollars in further spending through other relief efforts.
$8.3 billion was just the start, a taste of bigger things to come. But here we are years later, asking ourselves: At what cost comes such swift political action? If this Act was meant to be a comprehensive, effective response, why did we continue to need more funds? Perhaps it's time to stand back and see who really benefited from such lavish spending—bureaucrats or the very people they swear to protect.