PDA

View Full Version : GOP governors consider turning down stimulus money


WoodysGirl
02-18-2009, 07:13 PM
By Melinda Deslatte, Associated Press Writer – 6 mins ago

BATON ROUGE, La. – A handful of Republican governors are considering turning down some money from the federal stimulus package, a move opponents say puts conservative ideology ahead of the needs of constituents struggling with record foreclosures and soaring unemployment.

Though none has outright rejected the money available for education, health care and infrastructure, the governors of Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alaska, South Carolina and Idaho have all questioned whether the $787 billion bill signed into law this week will even help the economy.

"My concern is there's going to be commitments attached to it that are a mile long," said Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who considered rejecting some of the money but decided Wednesday to accept it. "We need the freedom to pick and choose. And we need the freedom to say 'No thanks.'"

U.S. Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., the No. 3 House Democrat, said the governors — some of whom are said to be eyeing White House bids in 2012 — are putting their own interests first.

"No community or constituent should be denied recovery assistance due to their governor's political ideology or political aspirations," Clyburn said Wednesday.

In fact, governors who reject some of the stimulus aid may find themselves overridden by their own legislatures because of language Clyburn included in the bill that allows lawmakers to accept the federal money even if their governors object.

He inserted the provision based on the early and vocal opposition to the stimulus plan by South Carolina's Republican governor, Mark Sanford. But it also means governors like Sanford and Louisiana's Bobby Jindal — a GOP up-and-comer often mentioned as a potential 2012 presidential candidate — can burnish their conservative credentials, knowing all the while that their legislatures can accept the money anyway.

Jindal said he, like Perry and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, is concerned about strings attached to the money even though his state faces a $1.7 billion budget shortfall next year.

Barbour spokesman Dan Turner, for example, cited concerns that accepting unemployment money from the stimulus package would force states to pay benefits to people who wouldn't meet state requirements to receive them.

In Idaho, Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter said he wasn't interested in stimulus money that would expand programs and boost the state's costs in future years when the federal dollars disappear — a worry also cited by Jindal and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

A spokesman said Sanford, the new head of the Republican Governors Association, is looking at the stimulus bill to figure out how much of it he can control.

"We're going through a 1,200-page bill to determine what our options are," Spokesman Joel Sawyer said. "From there, we'll make decisions."

But state Democratic Party chairwoman Carol Fowler says Sanford's hesitation is driven by his political ambition rather than the best interests of a state that had the nation's third-highest unemployment rate in December.

"He's so ideological," Fowler said. "He would rather South Carolina do without jobs than take that money, and I think he's looking for a way not to take it."

Not all Republican governors are reticent about using the federal cash.

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist lobbied for the stimulus plan and Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue has embraced it as he looks to close a $2.6 billion deficit in the state's budget this year. Alabama Gov. Bob Riley has already figured the money into his state's budget.

Pearson Cross, a political scientist at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, said fiscally conservative governors may be able to give themselves political cover by turning down small portions of the stimulus money, like health care dollars requiring a state match, that they might not fully use anyway.

But in the end, he said, they will likely take most of the available money because their states need it so badly.

"Ideology usually takes second place for governors," he said. "And that's going to mean that most governors are going to go ahead and take the money even though they have misgivings about it."

___

Associated Press writers Seanna Adcox, Mary Clare Jalonick, Shannon McCaffrey, John Miller, Emily Wagster Pettus, Phillip Rawls, Anne Sutton and Jim Vertuno contributed to this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090219/ap_on_bi_ge/bucking_the_stimulus

BrAinPaiNt
02-18-2009, 07:15 PM
I thought I read a blurb somewhere where Jindal was considering turning it down as well.

WoodysGirl
02-18-2009, 07:15 PM
I thought I read a blurb somewhere where Jindal was considering turning it down as well.
He's quoted in the article.

BrAinPaiNt
02-18-2009, 07:18 PM
He's quoted in the article.

:o: My bad...I just read the first few names in that one paragraph.

WoodysGirl
02-18-2009, 07:19 PM
:o: My bad...I just read the first few names in that one paragraph.
CrazyCowboy, is that you?

BrAinPaiNt
02-18-2009, 07:21 PM
CrazyCowboy, that you?

He has left a void in my heart. When I was down he was always there to post a one liner that had nothing to do with an article and it would always make me smile.

SuspectCorner
02-18-2009, 07:53 PM
When push comes to shove, the governors who want to be re-elected (and who wouldn't THAT include?) - will take it with a quickness. More empty-suit posturing.

DIAF
02-18-2009, 08:10 PM
I fully expect the ones who really need it to take it as well. There's going to be FAR too much pressure coming at them to do otherwise.

Jarv
02-18-2009, 08:28 PM
When push comes to shove, the governors who want to be re-elected (and who wouldn't THAT include?) - will take it with a quickness. More empty-suit posturing.

Yo bro, I know we are on different sides of the fence on many things, but you seem like a sharp guy. I have a question for you. What do you think about term limits in Congress ?

My favorite President is George Washington, because he declined a 3rd term and basically toted that Government positions are an honor and a chance to "server" our country, that it should not be a way of life.

I personally wish we had term limits in Congress because I think that's is what is most wrong with the government. A Presidents last year is typically one of his best because all of the sudden he concerned about "his legacy".

Lobbyist would leave Congressmen and Senators alone if they knew they were not being re-elected...Probably a lot more benefits to this IMHO.

Just wondered what your take on this is ?

sbark
02-18-2009, 08:53 PM
.......Obama Shock Troops have the "cannot refuse" clause built in......another court case up and comeing.......

Question: there will be a myriad of court cases over Stimus money, abortion, gun rights, 1st amendment.....

In one of these cases, finally a claim of "harm" can be made to SCOTUS---will someone ask Obama' qualifications to sign Legislation....ie BC? Will they force him to offically present it? SCOTUS has turned away all suits to this point based on questionable "harm" to defendents......

Will the legality of the Punish Mark Sanford Amendment be tested? (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/18/will-the-legality-of-the-punish-mark-sanford-amendment-be-tested/)

By Michelle Malkin • February 18, 2009 12:52 PM
Last week before the Generational Theft Act was rammed through, I called the sneaky provision to prevent governors from turning down stimulus money the “Punish Mark Sanford Amendment.”
South Carolina Rep. and House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn stuck the language into the bill to target GOP S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford — a leading fiscal conservative critic [...]

The Punish Mark Sanford Amendment; Update: Durbin defends (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/13/the-punish-mark-sanford-amendment/)

By Michelle Malkin • February 13, 2009 10:56 AM
Buried in the porkulus conference report is a provision specifically targeting governors who would exercise the choice to refuse stimulus money.
It’s an obvious end-run around the authority of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, the outspoken GOP fiscal conservative who has staunchly opposed the behemoth federal package.
Read it:
SEC. 1607. (a) CERTIFICATION BY GOVERNOR — Not later [...]

ZB9
02-18-2009, 09:05 PM
LOL yea right! and I have ocean front property in McCain's state to sell you

GOP needs to get their **** together and start becoming real conservatives before they start such insincere postering

SuspectCorner
02-18-2009, 09:30 PM
Yo bro, I know we are on different sides of the fence on many things, but you seem like a sharp guy. I have a question for you. What do you think about term limits in Congress ?

My favorite President is George Washington, because he declined a 3rd term and basically toted that Government positions are an honor and a chance to "server" our country, that it should not be a way of life.

I personally wish we had term limits in Congress because I think that's is what is most wrong with the government. A Presidents last year is typically one of his best because all of the sudden he concerned about "his legacy".

Lobbyist would leave Congressmen and Senators alone if they knew they were not being re-elected...Probably a lot more benefits to this IMHO.

Just wondered what your take on this is ?

As long as it requires a two-thirds congressional majority to pass a constitutional amendment - it's a dead duck... but, ultimately, voters control elections.

Speak up via the ballot box. We outnumber the politicians - and they should be oft-reminded of the statistical realities.

trickblue
02-18-2009, 10:33 PM
Speak up via the ballot box. We outnumber the politicians - and they should be oft-reminded of the statistical realities.

We don't anymore... Gerrymandering took the people's voice out of the equation...

DIAF
02-18-2009, 10:45 PM
We don't anymore... Gerrymandering took the people's voice out of the equation...

Not so. If you look at all the polls that were taken in 2006 (and in 2008) in advance of the election, people were asked to rate congress, and then asked to rate THEIR congressman. Congress got overwhelmingly horrible marks from nearly everyone, but when it came to THEIR congressman, people were generally positive. "Everyone else's congressman sucks, but mine". People are way too complacent. They see all this junk on the news, blame politicians, but don't stop to think that their politician is one of the bad guys. So, they just keep pulling the lever and some of us wonder why nothing changes.

SuspectCorner
02-18-2009, 10:53 PM
We don't anymore... Gerrymandering took the people's voice out of the equation...

Tom Delay is the most recent example I can recall... know of anything more recent, trick?

iceberg
02-18-2009, 10:55 PM
LOL yea right! and I have ocean front property in McCain's state to sell you

GOP needs to get their **** together and start becoming real conservatives before they start such insincere postering

if they don't want the money but it's forced on them, who's being stupid and over-micromanaging?

Jarv
02-18-2009, 10:55 PM
As long as it requires a two-thirds congressional majority to pass a constitutional amendment - it's a dead duck... but, ultimately, voters control elections.

Speak up via the ballot box. We outnumber the politicians - and they should be oft-reminded of the statistical realities.

Yeah, but if it could be passed...and say you were a congressmen and had a vote. Would you be for it or against it ?

SuspectCorner
02-18-2009, 11:02 PM
Yeah, but if it could be passed...and say you were a congressmen and had a vote. Would you be for it or against it ?

I'm kinda down on career politicians 'cuz the longer they're in office the more lobbyists have rapped on their door, and the more special interest connections they will have amassed. It's not necessarily fair to pols because it assumes that they will all eventually cave.

But, dang me, that's where I'm at.

trickblue
02-18-2009, 11:06 PM
Not so. If you look at all the polls that were taken in 2006 (and in 2008) in advance of the election, people were asked to rate congress, and then asked to rate THEIR congressman. Congress got overwhelmingly horrible marks from nearly everyone, but when it came to THEIR congressman, people were generally positive. "Everyone else's congressman sucks, but mine". People are way too complacent. They see all this junk on the news, blame politicians, but don't stop to think that their politician is one of the bad guys. So, they just keep pulling the lever and some of us wonder why nothing changes.

What does Gerrymandering have to do with this?

DIAF
02-18-2009, 11:09 PM
What does Gerrymandering have to do with this?

I dunno, you said it, I didn't.

My point is that the culprit isn't gerrymandering, its our own complacency. Or laziness. Or apathy. Or whatever you want to call it. We cant vote for other people's representatives. But if we are too unwilling to throw out our own, effectively nothing changes. We want "change" but we aren't willing to do what it takes.

trickblue
02-18-2009, 11:13 PM
I dunno, you said it, I didn't.

My point is that the culprit isn't gerrymandering, its our own complacency. Or laziness. Or apathy. Or whatever you want to call it. We cant vote for other people's representatives. But if we are too unwilling to throw out our own, effectively nothing changes. We want "change" but we aren't willing to do what it takes.

What did I say that was different?

DIAF
02-18-2009, 11:50 PM
What did I say that was different?

well, you blamed Gerrymandering, for one.

trickblue
02-18-2009, 11:58 PM
well, you blamed Gerrymandering, for one.

and that isn't an issue?

DIAF
02-19-2009, 12:31 AM
and that isn't an issue?

I don't think so, no. Gerrymandering is a completely different issue from voter apathy. It boils down to what people are willing to do with their own elected officials. Which is, not much.

ZB9
02-19-2009, 12:34 AM
if they don't want the money but it's forced on them, who's being stupid and over-micromanaging?

good point, but I wish most of their actions would match most of their words when it comes to not spending (delusional thought on my part I know)