Latest news with #EconomicPolicyInstitute
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
The real reason we tip
We've all been there. Maybe it's when you grab a coffee in the morning or when you finish up a dinner out with friends. Maybe it's when you least expect it, like at the merch table at a concert. You tap your card, only to be confronted with the dreaded tip screen. There's a lot of talk about how much to tip and if you even should tip (more on that later), but why do we add gratuity in America in the first place? Nina Mast has the answer. She's an analyst at the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank in Washington, DC. The point of the tip is to make up the difference between the minimum wage and the tipped minimum wage. 'The tipped minimum wage is the lower minimum wage that employers can pay tipped workers with the expectation that tips will bring their pay up to the regular minimum wage rate,' she says. 'Under federal law, the tipped minimum wage is $2.13 an hour. So tipped workers need to earn an additional $5.12 in tips to bring them up to the federal minimum wage, which is $7.25 an hour.' On this week's episode of Explain It to Me, Vox's weekly call-in podcast, we find out how this system began and why we still have it. Below is an excerpt of our conversation with Mast, edited for length and clarity. You can listen to the full episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get podcasts. If you'd like to submit a question, send an email to askvox@ or call 1-800-618-8545. Where does tipping in America come from in the first place? Tipping goes back to the pre-Civil War times in the US. There were wealthy Americans who were vacationing in Europe, and they noticed this practice of tipping where if you had good service, you gave a small extra fee on top of what you paid. Then, tipping started to fade as a practice in Europe but persisted in the US. We can tie that back to the abolition of slavery. Once slavery was abolished following the Civil War, workers who were formerly enslaved in agriculture and domestic service continued to do these same jobs, but employers didn't want to pay them. So instead of actually just paying them their wage, they suggested that the customer paid a small tip to Black workers for their services. That's how tipping started proliferating across service sector jobs and became the predominant way that workers in these jobs were paid. How did the restaurant industry start to do this? It really goes back to the formation of the National Restaurant Association. From the very beginning, going back to the early 1920s, they united around a common goal of keeping labor costs low, essentially lobbying against any efforts to raise wages for tipped workers and to eliminate the tipped minimum wage. It sounds like this whole policy is a direct legacy of trying to keep Black people from getting the same minimum wage as other workers. When were service sectors included in the national minimum wage? It wasn't until the mid-1960s that tipped workers got the same rights as other workers under changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act. In the mid-1960s — this is during the civil rights movement, a few years after the March on Washington, which called for stronger minimum wage protections — amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act established a wage floor for tipped workers. It also increased protections for workers in agriculture, schools, laundries, nursing homes — a lot of sectors in which Black people were disproportionately employed and in which workers of color are still overrepresented even today. This was a big deal. Something like a third of the Black population gained protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act through these amendments in 1966. Even after these amendments, the FLSA continued to exclude farm workers from overtime protections, and domestic workers didn't gain rights until the 1970s. It was a significant change, and a big deal, for tipped workers to be covered, but there was a huge catch in the amendment. It established a lower minimum wage that tipped workers could be paid through the creation of the tip credit system. And that's still what is in use today. This tip credit essentially allowed employers to count the tips that were received by their staff against half of the minimum wage that they were required to pay. In 1996, the FLSA was amended again to raise the minimum wage federally from $4.25 to $5.15. Essentially, that froze the tipped minimum wage at $2.13 an hour, while the non-tipped minimum wage continued to go up. The tipped minimum wage has been stuck at $2.13 an hour since 1991, even though the federal minimum wage has been increased multiple times. And that's still the situation we're in now. Why hasn't this changed? It seems like it would be easier to give everyone the same minimum wage, and you wouldn't have to worry about tipping. I think that's in large part due to the lobbying and advocacy efforts of the National Restaurant Association, its affiliates — groups like the US Chamber of Commerce — and other employer groups that have fought tirelessly to prevent the minimum wage from being raised, both for tipped workers and for other workers. There is a proposal in Congress to raise the minimum wage to $17 an hour by 2030, and it would completely phase out this tipped minimum wage so tipped workers would receive the same minimum wage as everyone else. Some states have already eliminated the tipped minimum wage, but a lot more states haven't been able to do so yet. In most states, the minimum wage for tipped workers is still less than $4 an hour. How does the tip credit system work in practice? Employers are legally required to make up the difference if workers aren't receiving enough in tips to get them up to the regular minimum wage. But in practice, it's extremely difficult to enforce that rule. It's largely left up to the workers themselves to track their hours, their tips, and make some complicated calculations about what they're actually earning per hour per week. Then they have to confront their employer if it seems like they're not actually receiving the minimum wage, which obviously introduces a whole host of issues related to power dynamics. Not only is it difficult to calculate and keep track of, but it's also difficult for workers to demand what they're owed. As a result, it's largely not enforced. Workers who are already earning much lower wages than workers in non-tipped occupations are highly at risk of wage theft. I think as consumers, we're initially taught that tips are a way to reward good service. How should we think about tipping? I think this is a big misconception. People don't realize that they're actually paying the lion's share of their server's wages through their tips. Unfortunately, when you fail to tip your server, you're actually denying them their wage. We don't have the luxury in the US of having the system that you describe where you can pay a tip for particularly good service or pay a smaller tip to indicate that you didn't get good service. How much do you typically tip? I tip 20 percent as a standard, and sometimes, for a really good service, I'll tip more. I think that's basically the standard at this point in the US. It does get tricky, because we've seen a proliferation of tipping across lots of different transactions where a service wasn't necessarily rendered. I think customers are increasingly frustrated by that, especially as the costs of things have gone up. But I hope customers target their frustration not at tipped workers but towards the employers and the lobbying groups that have fought for decades to preserve and expand the system. When you're tipping, remember that you're actually paying your server's wage, and that's a problem that we need to be solving by putting the onus on employers to pay their workers. Solve the daily Crossword
Vox
2 days ago
- Business
- Vox
The real reason we tip
is the host of Explain It to Me, your hotline for all your unanswered questions. She joined Vox in 2022 as a senior producer and then as host of The Weeds, Vox's policy podcast. We've all been there. Maybe it's when you grab a coffee in the morning or when you finish up a dinner out with friends. Maybe it's when you least expect it, like at the merch table at a concert. You tap your card, only to be confronted with the dreaded tip screen. There's a lot of talk about how much to tip and if you even should tip (more on that later), but why do we add gratuity in America in the first place? Nina Mast has the answer. She's an analyst at the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank in Washington, DC. The point of the tip is to make up the difference between the minimum wage and the tipped minimum wage. 'The tipped minimum wage is the lower minimum wage that employers can pay tipped workers with the expectation that tips will bring their pay up to the regular minimum wage rate,' she says. 'Under federal law, the tipped minimum wage is $2.13 an hour. So tipped workers need to earn an additional $5.12 in tips to bring them up to the federal minimum wage, which is $7.25 an hour.' On this week's episode of Explain It to Me, Vox's weekly call-in podcast, we find out how this system began and why we still have it. Below is an excerpt of our conversation with Mast, edited for length and clarity. You can listen to the full episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get podcasts. If you'd like to submit a question, send an email to askvox@ or call 1-800-618-8545. Where does tipping in America come from in the first place? Tipping goes back to the pre-Civil War times in the US. There were wealthy Americans who were vacationing in Europe, and they noticed this practice of tipping where if you had good service, you gave a small extra fee on top of what you paid. Then, tipping started to fade as a practice in Europe but persisted in the US. We can tie that back to the abolition of slavery. Once slavery was abolished following the Civil War, workers who were formerly enslaved in agriculture and domestic service continued to do these same jobs, but employers didn't want to pay them. So instead of actually just paying them their wage, they suggested that the customer paid a small tip to Black workers for their services. That's how tipping started proliferating across service sector jobs and became the predominant way that workers in these jobs were paid. How did the restaurant industry start to do this? It really goes back to the formation of the National Restaurant Association. From the very beginning, going back to the early 1920s, they united around a common goal of keeping labor costs low, essentially lobbying against any efforts to raise wages for tipped workers and to eliminate the tipped minimum wage. It sounds like this whole policy is a direct legacy of trying to keep Black people from getting the same minimum wage as other workers. When were service sectors included in the national minimum wage? It wasn't until the mid-1960s that tipped workers got the same rights as other workers under changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act. In the mid-1960s — this is during the civil rights movement, a few years after the March on Washington, which called for stronger minimum wage protections — amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act established a wage floor for tipped workers. It also increased protections for workers in agriculture, schools, laundries, nursing homes — a lot of sectors in which Black people were disproportionately employed and in which workers of color are still overrepresented even today. This was a big deal. Something like a third of the Black population gained protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act through these amendments in 1966. Even after these amendments, the FLSA continued to exclude farm workers from overtime protections, and domestic workers didn't gain rights until the 1970s. It was a significant change, and a big deal, for tipped workers to be covered, but there was a huge catch in the amendment. It established a lower minimum wage that tipped workers could be paid through the creation of the tip credit system. And that's still what is in use today. This tip credit essentially allowed employers to count the tips that were received by their staff against half of the minimum wage that they were required to pay. In 1996, the FLSA was amended again to raise the minimum wage federally from $4.25 to $5.15. Essentially, that froze the tipped minimum wage at $2.13 an hour, while the non-tipped minimum wage continued to go up. The tipped minimum wage has been stuck at $2.13 an hour since 1991, even though the federal minimum wage has been increased multiple times. And that's still the situation we're in now. Why hasn't this changed? It seems like it would be easier to give everyone the same minimum wage, and you wouldn't have to worry about tipping. I think that's in large part due to the lobbying and advocacy efforts of the National Restaurant Association, its affiliates — groups like the US Chamber of Commerce — and other employer groups that have fought tirelessly to prevent the minimum wage from being raised, both for tipped workers and for other workers. There is a proposal in Congress to raise the minimum wage to $17 an hour by 2030, and it would completely phase out this tipped minimum wage so tipped workers would receive the same minimum wage as everyone else. Some states have already eliminated the tipped minimum wage, but a lot more states haven't been able to do so yet. In most states, the minimum wage for tipped workers is still less than $4 an hour. How does the tip credit system work in practice? Employers are legally required to make up the difference if workers aren't receiving enough in tips to get them up to the regular minimum wage. But in practice, it's extremely difficult to enforce that rule. It's largely left up to the workers themselves to track their hours, their tips, and make some complicated calculations about what they're actually earning per hour per week. Then they have to confront their employer if it seems like they're not actually receiving the minimum wage, which obviously introduces a whole host of issues related to power dynamics. Not only is it difficult to calculate and keep track of, but it's also difficult for workers to demand what they're owed. As a result, it's largely not enforced. Workers who are already earning much lower wages than workers in non-tipped occupations are highly at risk of wage theft. I think as consumers, we're initially taught that tips are a way to reward good service. How should we think about tipping? I think this is a big misconception. People don't realize that they're actually paying the lion's share of their server's wages through their tips. Unfortunately, when you fail to tip your server, you're actually denying them their wage. We don't have the luxury in the US of having the system that you describe where you can pay a tip for particularly good service or pay a smaller tip to indicate that you didn't get good service. How much do you typically tip? I tip 20 percent as a standard, and sometimes, for a really good service, I'll tip more. I think that's basically the standard at this point in the US. It does get tricky, because we've seen a proliferation of tipping across lots of different transactions where a service wasn't necessarily rendered.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
If Every Worker in America Earned the Same Paycheck, What Would Happen to the Economy?
Imagine an America where the CEO of a tech giant takes home the same salary as a grocery store cashier. Where software engineers, janitors, teachers and hedge fund managers all earn the exact same paycheck. It's a radical idea, and one that's gaining attention thanks to people like Madeline Pendleton, founder of Tunnel Vision, a clothing company where every employee, including Pendleton herself, is paid the same wage. Profits are shared, and there's a five-year plan to distribute ownership equally. It's an especially compelling idea when you consider that most working Americans are struggling to get by, while CEOs were paid 351 times as much as the typical worker in 2020, according to the Economic Policy Institute. But what would happen if this model were scaled up, not just to one business, but to the entire U.S. economy? Find Out: Read Next: The short answer: The results would be complicated, and maybe even chaotic. Chris Motola, a financial analyst with explains that the impact of every worker in the U.S. drawing the same salary is very different than every worker within a single company drawing the same salary. 'A socialist company like Tunnel Vision is still competing within a capitalist economy,' he said. 'Blown out to the national level, this technically wouldn't even be socialism, but a strictly enforced compensation regime.' Pendleton's model thrives partly because it exists within capitalism. Her employees benefit from equitable treatment and profit-sharing, but the business still competes on the open market. When you remove individual compensation differences across the entire workforce, say, by mandating a single national wage, it changes everything. What Happens to Motivation and Performance? One of the biggest challenges in a flat-pay society is motivation. If no matter how hard (or little) you work, you earn the same as everyone else, what's the incentive to go above and beyond? 'The immediate question is, 'How would such a society provide extrinsic motivation if it can't offer different levels of financial compensation to workers at the individual level?'' Motola said. He proposes a few scenarios. One is to treat the nation like a giant corporation, where GDP gains and sovereign wealth fund profits are distributed as bonuses, meaning everyone is a stockholder. Another is to provide nonfinancial incentives like status, land or flexibility. But both ideas raise further questions: Who decides who gets what perks? What keeps people from burning out when their extra effort brings them no extra pay? 'High performers and low performers would receive the same compensation, however, which could lead to resentment and burnout,' Motola noted. Discover More: Would Markets Still Exist? Even in a flat-pay society, people would likely still want to build wealth. If investment and ownership remain possible, a new class divide could simply emerge between those who invest wisely and those who don't (or can't afford to). 'Does the market still exist? Can people still invest? If so, investors could potentially earn a higher income beyond their salary,' Motola pointed out. So even if salaries were equal, inequalities could persist, just in different forms. Capital investment, property ownership and other private ventures might become the new dividing lines. The End of the Hustle Economy One immediate effect of wage flattening could be the collapse of the hustle economy. No more side gigs for extra income, because everyone already earns the same. That might sound great to burned-out workers, but it could also stifle innovation. Still, there's potential upside: more collaboration and less competition. Without the pressure to outperform for promotions or raises, people might focus on meaningful work, not just lucrative work. Slower, but Possibly Fairer Decision-Making A national flat-pay system would likely eliminate traditional corporate hierarchies, or at least remove pay as the incentive for climbing them. 'The main value proposition of hierarchy, including economic hierarchy, is that it provides a quicker, more efficient decision-making apparatus than resolving things by committee,' Motola said. 'The flipside is that a bad despot can do far more damage than a bad committee.' With equal pay, leadership roles may still exist but they'd be chosen for trust or skill, not compensation. That could lead to slower processes but potentially more democratic workplaces. Utopian or Unworkable? Ultimately, paying every worker in America the same salary would require a fundamental restructuring of how we define value, ambition and success. Changing every worker's salary to a flat rate would go well beyond payroll. It would require a fundamental reset of cultural norms around value, ambition and success. Pendleton's Tunnel Vision proves that an equal-pay model can work on a small scale, with buy-in from everyone involved. But scaling that model to an entire nation? As Motola put it, 'Long story short: It's an unworkable scenario.' Still, it's a compelling thought experiment and one that forces us to confront the values embedded in our paychecks, and to ask whether equality always has to come at the expense of incentive, or if we just need a new kind of incentive altogether. More From GOBankingRates 10 Genius Things Warren Buffett Says To Do With Your Money This article originally appeared on If Every Worker in America Earned the Same Paycheck, What Would Happen to the Economy?
Business Insider
18-07-2025
- Business
- Business Insider
I visited the most expensive places in Utah and Wyoming. They were similar, but I'd only consider moving to one.
Park City and Jackson Hole are Western hot spots for wealthy Americans. East of Salt Lake City in northern Utah, Park City sits on 20 square miles. Jackson Hole is in western Wyoming. The 60-mile-long valley in Teton County is just south of Grand Teton National Park and includes the towns of Jackson, Moose, Teton Village, and Wilson, among others. Tech workers, retirees, and C-suite execs are flocking to Park City from around the US. Park City is perhaps best known for its slopes, where you'll find world-class skiing. It served as the setting for several events during the 2002 Olympic Games. Park City is also part of the Silicon Slopes, a 50-mile area comprising Salt Lake City and surrounding suburbs that has grown into a tech hub over the past two decades. Park City's roughly 8,100 residents have an average household income of $247,300, according to World Population Review. Local real-estate agent Derrik Carlson told Business Insider his clients are techies, entrepreneurs, retirees, and CEOs from Chicago and the coasts. Boomers and DINKs from Texas to California are snatching up homes in Jackson Hole. Best known for its proximity to Grand Teton National Park, Teton County has about 23,000 residents — more than 10,000 of whom live in the town of Jackson, the heart of Jackson Hole, where you'll find most businesses and infrastructure. Teton County and the town of Jackson have the most unequal income in the US. Data from the Economic Policy Institute states that the top 1% of residents in Teton County generate 142 times the income of the bottom 99%. "Our clients in the past few years have ranged in age from 30 to 60 years and come from high-net-worth backgrounds," Laurie Huff, a real-estate agent at Sotheby's Jackson Hole, told BI. "A finance/business background seems to account for a large percentage." Sam Haack, a local real-estate agent, told BI his clientele is made up mostly of DINKs (dual-income, no kids) and boomers. "The baby boomers have largely gained their wealth through their appreciation of assets over the years, like their equity portfolios, other homes, and businesses," he said. "Some of these clients may still work W2 jobs in finance, consulting, or real estate, but are usually business owners and entrepreneurs." Both are luxury ski towns full of resorts and part-time residents. Park City and Jackson Hole are popular destinations for purchasing vacation homes. Both have an active ski scene. In Jackson Hole, 60% of Haack's clients and 50% of Huff's buyers became part-time residents. Meanwhile, Carlson said about 50% of incoming Park City residents are vacation-home buyers. Both locations have a range of seasonal activities. Living in either location would allow me to pursue a variety of sports and hobbies, from skiing and snowboarding to golfing and hiking. "We have so much public land right out our back doors, and the goal is to spend as little time indoors as possible," Haack said. "I think this is why people are willing to live in such small and expensive living situations in Jackson." Park City may be more affordable. Before considering moving anywhere, I'd have to research the cost of living. Best Places' cost of living calculator shows that both places are more expensive than the average US city or county. From food and housing to healthcare and transportation, the cost of living in Park City is 69% higher than the country's average, while Teton County is 80.9% higher. You'll find cheaper groceries in Park City and cheaper utility bills in Teton County. You can find housing in Park City for a range of price points. Park City real estate appealed to me because it can accommodate a variety of budgets. According to the median listing price is $2 million. There's a selection of homes on the market for less than $1 million and plenty of condos listed for less than $500,000. On the high end of the market, 20,000-square-foot mansions on multiple acres with ski-in/ski-out access cost up to $50 million. Jackson Hole has a primarily luxury market. Private property is scarce in Teton County because 97% of it is public land. Haack told BI that this drives up home prices on the slim 3% of available acreage. Homeowners "tend to hang onto these properties for the appreciation and tax advantages, leading to even less inventory and supply," he added. According to the Viehman Group's 2025 first-quarter Jackson Hole Real Estate report, the average listing price of a single-family home in the area as of April 1 was $10.7 million. The priciest home in Teton County listed on is a $65 million, 16-bedroom, 14-bathroom ranch on a whopping 190 acres. I saw fewer listings costing under $1 million in Teton County than in Park City. I found the most expensive neighborhoods outside the town of Jackson. Haack said this is because they offer larger, more secluded properties. Both places have walkable streets lined with shops and restaurants. One of the best parts of living in New York is having plenty of stores, restaurants, and a nightlife scene within walking distance of my apartment. So, if I were ever to leave my city, I'd want some version of these conveniences. Both Park City and Jackson Hole have walkable neighborhoods. Park City's Old Town neighborhood was active and vibrant when I visited, thanks to its shops, eateries, venues, and ski lifts. "Downtown is designed to be walkable to get to Main Street or skiing," Carlson said. There was housing in Old Town, too, so I could imagine stepping outside my home and grabbing a coffee down the street. In Jackson Hole, downtown Jackson is a walkable haven with similar offerings, including the famous Million Dollar Cowboy Bar and a plethora of home furniture and decor stores. Both have awe-inspiring landscapes, but I thought Jackson Hole's views were more dramatic. It's easy to find a stunning view of the surrounding mountains in Park City and Jackson Hole. But the Wyoming enclave's scenery is far more striking. The mountains stand taller, and since Jackson Hole borders Grand Teton National Park, the scenery is less developed than Park City's. It seemed easier to travel in and out of Park City. Since I travel for work and have family spread out all over the country, it's important to me to live near a well-connected major airport. I'd be just 30 to 45 minutes from Salt Lake City International Airport by car in Park City. Meanwhile, Jackson Hole Airport is one of the smallest US airports. Located in Grand Teton National Park, it offers phenomenal views from the plane. However, I had to take a connecting flight to get there, so I imagine I'd have to deal with layovers often if it were my home airport. Ultimately, I could only see myself living in Park City. Park City and Jackson Hole offer similar lifestyles, with luxury real estate and an active outdoors scene. Still, Park City seems more financially attainable and convenient for me.
12-07-2025
- Business
DOGE sprouts in red states, as governors embrace the cost-cutter brand and make it their own
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- The brash and chaotic first days of President Donald Trump 's Department of Government Efficiency, once led by the world's richest man Elon Musk, spawned state-level DOGE mimicry as Republican governors and lawmakers aim to show they are in step with their party's leader. Governors have always made political hay out of slashing waste or taming bureaucracy, but DOGE has, in some ways, raised the stakes for them to show that they are zealously committed to cutting costs. Many drive home the point that they have always been focused on cutting government, even if they're not conducting mass layoffs. 'I like to say we were doing DOGE before DOGE was a thing,' Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds said in announcing her own task force in January. Critics agree that some of these initiatives are nothing new and suggest they are wasteful, essentially duplicating built-in processes that are normally the domain of legislative committees or independent state auditors. At the same time, some governors are using their DOGE vehicles to take aim at GOP targets of the moment, such as welfare programs or diversity, equity and inclusion programs. And some governors who might be eyeing a White House run in 2028 are rebranding their cost-cutting initiatives as DOGE, perhaps eager to claim the mantle of the most DOGE of them all. At least 26 states have initiated DOGE-style efforts of varying kinds, according to the Economic Policy Institute based in Washington, D.C. Most DOGE efforts were carried out through a governor's order — including by governors in Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana, New Hampshire and Oklahoma — or by lawmakers introducing legislation or creating a legislative committee. The state initiatives have a markedly different character than Trump's slash-and-burn approach, symbolized by Musk's chainsaw-brandishing appearance at a Conservative Political Action Committee appearance in February. Governors are tending to entrust their DOGE bureaus to loyalists, rather than independent auditors, and are often employing what could be yearslong processes to consolidate procurement, modernize information technology systems, introduce AI tools, repeal regulations or reduce car fleets, office leases or worker headcounts through attrition. Steve Slivinski, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who researches state government regulatory structures, said that a lot of what he has seen from state-level DOGE initiatives are the 'same stuff you do on a pretty regular basis anyway' in state governments. States typically have routine auditing procedures and the ways states have of saving money are 'relatively unsexy," Slivinski said. And while the state-level DOGE vehicles might be useful over time in finding marginal improvements, "branding it DOGE is more of a press op rather than anything new or substantially different than what they usually do,' Slivinski said. Analysts at the pro-labor Economic Policy Institute say that governors and lawmakers, primarily in the South and Midwest, are using DOGE to breathe new life into long-term agendas to consolidate power away from state agencies and civil servants, dismantle public services and benefit insiders and privatization advocates. 'It's not actually about cutting costs because of some fiscal responsibility,' EPI analyst Nina Mast said. Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry rebranded his 'Fiscal Responsibility Program' as Louisiana DOGE, and promoted it as the first to team up with the federal government to scrub illegitimate enrollees from welfare programs. It has already netted $70 million in savings in the Medicaid program in an 'unprecedented' coordination, Landry said in June. In Oklahoma, Gov. Kevin Stitt — who says in a blurb on the Oklahoma DOGE website that 'I've been DOGE-ing in Oklahoma since before it was cool" — made a DOGE splash with the first report by his Division of Government Efficiency by declaring that the state would refuse some $157 million in federal public health grants. The biggest chunk of that was $132 million intended to support epidemiology and laboratory capacity to control infectious disease outbreaks. The Stitt administration said that funding — about one-third of the total over an eight-year period — exceeded the amount needed. The left-leaning Oklahoma Policy Institute questioned the wisdom of that, pointing to rising numbers of measles and whooping cough cases and the rocky transition under Stitt of the state's public health lab from Oklahoma City to Stillwater. Oklahoma Democrats issued rebukes, citing Oklahoma's lousy public health rankings. 'This isn't leadership,' state Sen. Carri Hicks said. 'It's negligence." Stitt's Oklahoma DOGE has otherwise recommended changes in federal law to save money, opened up the suggestion box to state employees and members of the general public and posted a spreadsheet online with cost savings initiatives in his administration. Those include things as mundane as agencies going paperless, refinancing bonds, buying automated lawn mowers for the Capitol grounds or eliminating a fax machine line in the State Board of Licensure for Professional Engineers and Surveyors. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed an executive order in February creating a task force of DOGE teams in each state agency. In the order, DeSantis recited 10 points on what he described as his and Florida's 'history of prudent fiscal management' even before DOGE. Among other things, DeSantis vowed to scrutinize spending by state universities and municipal and county governments — including on DEI initiatives — at a time when DeSantis is pushing to abolish the property taxes that predominantly fund local governments. His administration has since issued letters to universities and governments requesting reams of information and received a blessing from lawmakers, who passed legislation authorizing the inquiry and imposing fines for entities that don't respond. After the June 30 signing ceremony, DeSantis declared on social media: 'We now have full authority to DOGE local governments.' In Arkansas, Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders launched her cost-cutting Arkansas Forward last year, before DOGE, and later said the state had done the 'same thing' as DOGE. Her administration spent much of 2024 compiling a 97-page report that listed hundreds of ways to possibly save $300 million inside a $6.5 billion budget.
