Now, while Evita skimmed off the top for herself, nobody's accusing the folks at the top here of doing the same thing. (Obama's crew may be allergic to 1040s, but that's something else.) Still, everyone's supposedly committed to "transparency" - our own state government excepted - so states and localities are expected to, you know, track where they're spending all this borrowing.
Apparently, that wasn't in the budget:
You're kidding me, right? Nebraska's complaining about having to spend less that 0.1%, less than one tenth of one percent of thisWhen it comes to the $787 billion in federal stimulus money flowing from Washington to the states, it will cost money to spend money.
Nebraska's governor's office told lawmakers it expects to spend more than $1.2 million over two years to oversee disbursement of about $1.5 billion Nebraska stands to receive in federal stimulus funds.
Other states, including Colorado, are in similar straits. But Washington -- at least for now -- isn't handing out money for states to hire auditors and accountants, and the stimulus law requires stringent reporting from states to ensure transparency and curb abuses.
In any case, remember, money is fungible. If we're spending an extra couple of hundred million on, oh, transportation projects and workforce training, we really ought to be able to cut a million out to pay for the administrative costs.
Naturally, this last point completely escapes the AP, both in their main story and in their Colorado-specific addendum at the end.