This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Monday, May 11th, 2020. I'm Caleb Brown.

Some recent news reports claim that favoritism and political jockeying are what has

driven the federal government's distribution of vital relief supplies during

this pandemic, masks, personal protective equipment, ventilators, and other items.

To the extent those awful claims are true, it's nothing new.

Economist Steve Horwitz is co-author of a new peace and regulation,

examining past cases where political expedients trumped the needs of states.

There has been a concern that President Trump in dealing

with this pandemic would be the one to take resources out of politically disadvantageous places such as New York where he is

unlikely to receive any electoral votes and move them to places where he might well be benefited politically by moving things

like ventilators or PPP, PPE into those places. Have we seen any evidence of that before we get started into

what we're talking about here today?

Well, there's some evidence of this, I think, in two ways.

One, you've got some governors like Governor Whitmer in Michigan

complaining that they aren't getting their fair share of resources.

And if you've been following, the Detroit area has been hit pretty hard by this,

certainly not as bad as New York or some other places.

But, you know, she got a legitimate concern there.

So that's one kind of bit of evidence.

The other kind of evidence we have is sort of where some of the small business relief and so on has gone.

And if you look there, there's some preliminary evidence that states in the Midwest that have been Trump supporting states have seen resources come their way

that are that have been able them to cover a greater share of payroll than say New York and

...