A new Dallas Morning News investigation uncovered a left-leaning Dallas city councilmember’s taxpayer-funded foreign trip, raising questions over how and why city officials spent public money meant for pandemic relief.
According to the newspaper’s reporting, the councilmember in question “went on a 10-day trip to Dallas’ sister city Sendai, Japan, earlier this month. The $6,000 visit was funded by the city’s office of government affairs using reallocated American Rescue Plan Act funds”—a purpose well outside the city’s official explanation of its handling of COVID money.
At least one official document suggests that, since 2021, city hall has received $355.4 million through the American Rescue Plan Act, which it claims to have put toward “address[ing] critical response and recovery efforts related to the COVID-19 pandemic.” The document continues on, saying: “These federal funds have supported essential services and programs designed to mitigate public health impacts, support economic stabilization, and improve government service delivery during the recovery period.” It’s not yet clear how one man’s overseas excursion fits into this framework, but hopefully an answer will emerge at some point.
Whatever the case, this latest breach of public trust is important to note for at least 3 reasons.
First, it serves to illustrate the tax-and-spend mindset that dominates today’s local government landscape. Over the past several years, it has become commonplace to learn of local officials (especially of the progressive persuasion!) splurging on taxpayer-funded luxuries of all sorts. A Japanese junket? Sure! Steak dinners? Absolutely. A $700k house plus costly renovations? You betcha! Car allowances, housing allowances, bonuses, gas cards, six-figure salaries, and seven-figure severance payments? Why not. There are many other examples, but you get the point.
Second, the spending controversies that we’re aware of are likely only the tip of the iceberg. That’s because, to date, the State has performed no real comprehensive audit of local government pandemic spending, despite past proposals to do so (see Interim Charge #7, for example). It would behoove the State to undertake such an exercise, not only so that taxpayers can be better protected from high and costly tax increases, but also to promote fiscal prudence at the local level. Such efforts may be incredibly fruitful too, as Florida’s recent DOGE initiative is proving at this very moment.
Third, Dallas’ mishandling of COVID money further bolsters the case for a strict spending limit. Presently, cities and counties are not required to limit expenditure growth in any meaningful way, despite the fact that the State’s finances are governed by five statutory and constitutional spending limits. In this environment, city and county budgets have grown excessively large. This situation calls for fiscal discipline to be imposed. This can be achieved through legislative action that imposes a local government spending limit based on population and inflation. By controlling how fast the “All Funds” or total budget grows, state-level policymakers can prompt cities and counties to better account for what tax dollars are being spent and why, since there is only so much spending growth allowed from one year to the next.
So while one councilmember’s East Asian adventures may have cost taxpayers a hefty sum with no real return on investment, there is still some good that can come from this episode, if the next Texas Legislature is prepared to act. The need is clearly there.
