Rethinking the grant reflex

Over the past two-plus decades, “your columnist” Dick Trail and I have periodically revisited our gentleman’s disagreement about the acceptance of federal funds, particularly with regard to economic development efforts.

In both commentary and practice, having served on several government bodies, Dick has taken a principled stand against using “free” federal dollars from programs that many of us believe should probably not exist.

My personal view is that federal spending should be reduced – must be reduced – at the national level. We should, however, still take advantage of the funds available to us locally, only because neighboring cities and states are using those dollars to compete with us for jobs and population. We can’t afford to fall behind.

Dick would counter by arguing that when we accept pork-like funds, our implied need bolsters the arguments of those who wish to expand government.

I’m still sticking to my guns on not prematurely ceding our competitive advantages, but in recent weeks, I have found myself to be a bit more in tune with Dick’s perspective.

A couple of months back, I had a conversation with a local government employee and asked about the cost of a specific program. The reply was, “It didn’t cost us anything. It was all paid for by a federal grant.”

It was a bright, capable person who made that statement, so I have every reason to expect that the “we” in that instance referred to the municipality and not the taxpayer. Sadly, I don’t extend that benefit of doubt to everyone.

Many among us don’t understand or don’t care enough to think about how public services are funded. Many do indeed look at Federal funds as being ”free.” Some of that is a reminder that we need to take a more serious approach to civic education, but sometimes public figures contribute to that misunderstanding.

Elected officials and government staff alike are notoriously quick to point out that an item or program is obtained by federal or state grant. They do so, not with a claim that the item was “free,” but to point out that the item is not coming out of their budget; that the item will not influence their tax request.

In that sense, their claims are factual. The assertions are absolutely accurate.

The tone of voice, however, often expresses a mix of pride and relief. The comments convey “you’re not on the hook” or even “don’t blame us.” Is it surprising that a less critical listener might hear “free?”

That framing may be politically expedient, but it also obscures the reality that taxpayers at every level are footing the bill. Even worse, it can encourage a kind of budgetary sleight of hand where real costs are hidden under layers of government-to-government transfers. It also risks crowding out local deliberation – why fund something with a sales tax if a grant might swoop in from Washington?

With all of that said, I am also well aware of the effort that goes into grant applications and the regulatory and reporting requirements that follow. It’s honest work and school, city and county staff are entitled to be proud of the effort. They just might want to work on the messaging.