NEHA Government Affairs Activities

The focus this year was on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) appropriations, highlighting the importance of federal funding for food safety and other environmental health objectives to the state and local environmental health profession. Environmental Health Workforce Act It appears that the Environmental Health Workforce Act, a longstanding NEHA objective, will possibly be passed this year, with Representative Brenda Lawrence (D-Michigan) including language within the House of Representatives appropriations bill requesting a study on the environmental health workforce to be performed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Representative Wittman has shown a keen interest in ensuring that the nation's retail food safety system remains safe, well stocked, and provides a wide variety of foods to consumers in the U.S. NEHA looks forward to working with Representative Wittman on future public health and food safety efforts.

Addressing the Next State Fiscal Crisis: Toward an Ex Ante Scheme of Federal Assistance to States in Fiscal Distress

The Brookings Institute projects that state and local revenues will decline $155 billion in 2020 (5.5%), $167 billion in 2021 (5.7%), and $145 billion in 2022 (4.7%).4 Dwindling revenues are insufficient to cover mounting costs, and budget shortfalls are mounting.5 The looming state economic crisis has spurred a debate about the proper federal response.6 One position, often represented by governors or Congressional Democrats, advocates for massive federal aid to distressed states.7 In talks regarding the second COVID-19 stimulus, for example, Democrats pushed for more than $900 billion in federal aid to states, reasoning that states are unable to cope independently with their financial troubles.8 Without federal funds, argue the proponents of federal assistance, states may collapse, bringing the nation's economy with them.9 The other position, often represented by congressional Republicans, objects to using federal funds for state bailouts.10 According to this view, states should handle their own finances, and federal funds should not be handed out to poorly-managed ("blue") states.11 In lieu of federal aid, a state bankruptcy solution is offered.12 Bankruptcy law, it is argued, can reduce the states' debt overhang and spread their losses among their creditors, obviating the need for federal funds.13 But both of the suggested federal responses, bankruptcy law and ex post federal aid, seem problematic. [...]states don't have the resources to finance their rising costs, and a state economic crisis develops. [...]opposite to the directives of standard economic theory, in times of recession states cut spending and investments, and these measures damage not only the distressed states, but also the national economy. [...]as emphasized by opponents of federal bailouts, federal aid creates moral hazard problems. if states know that the federal government will provide financial assistance when they fall on hard times, they have little motivation to save or follow prudent financial policies.17 Second, and no less importantly, the Article shows that because federal aid is provided through a political process, it is dispensed according to politicians' personal interests and not necessarily pursuant to the beneficiaries' financial needs.

Bank Revolving Credit as a Channel of Monetary Policy

This paper investigates the implication of bank revolving credit in the form of credit card loans as a channel of monetary policy targeting the federal funds rate since 1980. Credit cards have become increasingly popular and a necessity for many transactions and purchases in the United States. The revolving credit nature of credit card loans makes them an instant tool for consumer loans that can facilitate consumption. Using instrumental variable and two-stage least squares (2SLS) methodology, we analyze the implication of credit card loans to modern monetary policy that targets interest rates.

The American Rescue Plan and Municipalities - Challenges Ahead

ARP establishes four permissible uses of these funds: 1 Respond to the public health emergency with respect to COVID-19 or its negative economic impacts (including issuance of grants to small businesses and nonprofits.) 2. [...]the three leading entities, together with the Councils of Government, are preparing direct outreach to municipalities experiencing difficulty in complying with its requirements. An Air Force veteran, he spent his professional career in the private practice of law and at the U.S. Department of Treasury.

Three Policy Pathways for Federal Health Care Funding in Canada

Federal health care funding has long been a source of policy debate in this country, a situation exacerbated recently by the COVID-19 pandemic and the calls by premiers for a massive expansion of the Canada Health Transfer. In this paper, after briefly reviewing the evolution of federal health care funding in Canada since the 1950s, we formulate three potential policy pathways federal policymakers might consider in order to improve health care funding in the country. The first pathway is the status quo, which simply preserves the Canada Health Transfer (CHT) as is. Explaining what the status quo entails is important to gauge the potential impact of the two other pathways we formulate, which depart from the status quo in a significant manner: first, the implementation of demographic adjustments that add to CHT as populations age;and second, the creation of a joint federal-provincial-territorial taxation regime. While the second pathway would constitute a form incremental change, the third one would be transformative in nature and, therefore, more challenging to implement, which is not a reason to exclude it for consideration, especially if we take a more long-term view of potential policy change in fiscal federalism. These three potential pathways should allow policymakers to consider how to adapt to changing circumstances while addressing the concerns of citizens and the demands of provincial/territorial governments. We do not support one or another of these policy pathways;instead, we explain what they are and what impact they could have, leaving the reader decide what option they prefer.