Skip to main content
You have permission to edit this article.
Editorial: Oklahoma use of federal COIVD-19 relief money included unwise, low priority projects

Editorial: Oklahoma use of federal COIVD-19 relief money included unwise, low priority projects

  • Updated
Hydroxychloroquine (copy)

Oklahoma is attempting to negotiate a return of the 1.2 million hydroxychloroquine pills Oklahoma acquired in April from a California-based supplier, FFF Enterprises.

Gov. Kevin Stitt’s office strongly disputes a legislative bureau’s report that questioned how $1.2 billion in federal COVID-19 relief funding was spent.

The Legislative Office of Fiscal Transparency reports says the state failed to provide documentation to justify some spending, a significant component of the relief funds was used for pre-existing needs and government modernization and some of the spending may not have met federal standards for necessary expenses in responding to the pandemic.

Untrue, say Stitt’s chief operating officer, John Budd, and former Budget Secretary Mike Mazzei, leaders of the state’s CARES FORWARD team.

The LOFT report is full of inaccuracies and unfairly criticizes a “monumental accomplishment” in relief work in a crisis.

The final word on whether the state’s spending met the letter of federal law will come from the federal government, and we won’t try to sort that out now.

But whether the spending met the letter of federal regs or not, it seems clear to us that some of it was plainly unwise and not spent on the state’s highest pandemic priorities.

Was it wise to spend $2 million on a marketing campaign featuring Stitt to draw tourist into the state at a time when Oklahoma had frighteningly high COVID-19 infection rates and health officials from Washington on down were discouraging unnecessary travel?

Was it wise to spend $250,000 to lure the Cattlemen’s Congress to the Oklahoma City fairgrounds a few months after the Oklahoma State Fair was cancelled because it couldn’t be held safely?

Was giving an up-front deposit of $2.1 million for 1.2 million masks from a company that failed to deliver the goods a prudent use of taxpayer money?

Was buying $2 million in hydroxychloroquine, a drug hyped by former President Donald Trump but that has proven ineffective against COVID-19, a good deal? If so, why is the state now trying to return all of the drugs?

The federal government gave an enormous amount of money to Stitt’s office to deal with the COVID-19 crisis, and a lot of that money — probably most of it — was spent exactly as it should have been, giving relief to people and organizations that were laid low by the disease.

Some of that spending was disorganized at times and none of it had the sort of legislative oversight that is the hallmark of good government, but fault there lies with Congress, not Stitt.

Still, there’s plenty to question about how some of the relief money was spent, and we’ve yet to hear a reasonable answer.

Featured video:

Subscribe to Daily Headlines

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Catch the latest in Opinion

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Related to this story

Most Popular

  • Updated

The strongest argument against straight-party voting is that there is no strong case for it, the editorial says. Convenience is not a convincing argument. It's a rationalization for ignorance and laziness: Voters who can't be bothered to learn enough about the people they support to recognize their names in print and mark the adjacent box

  • Updated

This was clear after a Monday press conference held by top state leaders: They largely don't know what they're going to do — if anything — about the looming wave of massive utility bills facing consumers throughout the state and the best assurances they had to offer were only modestly assuring, the editorial says.

  • Updated

Texas deserves our nation's pity and its help, the editorial says. 

The nation — and the interdependent nature of the states is the prime lesson of the Texas tragedy — must harden utilities against the anticipatable challenges of climate change and pursue a broad energy portfolio that will assure sustainable power and promote a stable climate.

Medicaid privatization is bad policy based on a flawed assumption — that that state can save money by putting a private intermediary between its costs and medical providers, the editorial says. That only works if fewer people get treated or they get treated on the cheap, and neither of those scenarios fits the proper purpose of Medicaid

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.


Breaking News