Why are some Republican Governors threatening to refuse stimulus money?

[lone_gunman]

Is this strictly a political ploy full of nothing but hot air?

I am against the stimulus, but if there is a stimulus, my governor better get our state's fair share of money.  Otherwise, my tax dollars flow into some other state.  Why would a governor want his people to be taxed, and the money given to some other state???

[AJ Dual]

Because of the Congressional earmarks, they can't just spend it on whatever they want, such as padding the state budget to allow for tax cuts, or debt service. Using the stimulus money will start an untold number of new public-sector agencies, expand existing ones, and create projects that will need funding in perpetuity.

[seeker_two]

Wish our Texas Governor would have a backbone and reject the porkulus money instead of flip-flopping all over the place.... 

...instead, Texas should reject the money & increase the taxes for Texas oil & other goods shipped to states whose reps voted for Porkulus to meet the money we rejected.... 

[Gewehr98]

Tam has an excellent response to Paul Begala's drivel here:

http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2009/02/report-from-planet-unicorn.html

[Waitone]

Mark Sanford of SC has had it right up to here with unfunded federal mandates.  He is reacting to considerable public anger at growing federal arrogance and power.  Something like 15 states are actively considering legislation of various types which would push back against federal government encroachment of (ready for this) state's rights.  Seems the latest constitutional fad is allegiance to the 10th amendment.  I just found out SC has sovereignty legislation in the hopper (S-424).  It is not all I want but any positive motion in the proper direction is good.

[SteveS]

I just found out SC has sovereignty legislation in the hopper (S-424).  It is not all I want but any positive motion in the proper direction is good.

Sounds good, but what would the legislation accomplish?  Do you have a link to the text of the bill?

[Boomhauer]

Living in SC does have it's advantages.

A pissed off, truly conservative governor is one of them. It's a shame he won't be in office much longer. We're going to miss him.

[Waitone]

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/bills/424.htm

For now it is a joint resolution.  I would rather see a few lines drawn in the sand.  I would also like to see certain historically accurate, inflammatory language used if for no other reason than to cause a stir.  Somewhere in the legislation use the phrase "null and void".

BTW, Sanford is leaving the governorship.  He ain't leaving politics.  I read his actions as positioning for a national move.  He's one of what; four state level politicians who have made a cogent argument against federal bigfooting.

[MechAg94]

Not reading the links yet, what I heard on the radio was that Texas would have to match the money that the federal govt is "giving" us and then after 2 years would have to fund it 100%. 

Of course, this is all what I heard so we'll see.  As I understand it, our Gov is going to accept the money so there may be more to it. 

[MechAg94]

http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_state/

I came across a link to this list.  I heard it might have some stuff that was taken out. 

I guess the comment I heard above was only referring to some of this stuff.

[Monkeyleg]

Scott Walker, the Milwaukee County executive, has taken a ton of heat for not wanting to accept federal porkulus dollars. His stated reason is that the matching funds requirement on many of the federal monies would require a property tax increase, and that accepting the money would just be taking it from someone else.

It's a principled stand, which is why the media is shredding him. We can't have principles in government.

[Scout26]

Yep, just what would happen if certain states said "Thanks, but no thanks" to Porkulus money ??

[Waitone]

Yep, just what would happen if certain states said "Thanks, but no thanks" to Porkulus money ??

Take a look at what has already happened in SC.  The Governor says he won't take the money (since changed but stick with me).  Shortly thereafter SC's representative in congress in the form of James Clyburn says, "Oh yes they will" and sets about working on legislative skulduggery to circumvent the governor's authority.  In other words the federales will force feed the states money they want to refuse.  Seems to me a moldy old document somewhere in DC has a few things to say about such actions.  Representative Clyburn's actions is the reason why I said in a few posts earlier that a few lines need to be drawn in the sand.

The issue is not stimulus; the issue is control and the agent of control is federal money.  Sanford has clearly said he will examine the checks for strings.  Come to think of it, maybe the lines are being drawn as we type.

[FTA84]

I remember when I was a child and I had friends who smoked.

There was a way they used to get around having the younger sibilings telling the parents.  It was a game like this:

Kid finds his brother smoking.  Brother says, "Smoke this or I will tell Mom that I caught you smoking."  After some back and forther, Kid takes a smoke. "Don't ever tell Mom I smoke because you just smoked with me."

Governors are being forced to take the money because their citizens paid the money in taxes (supposedly, minus the wealth redistribution factor).  Then, once they take it, the .gov gets to say, "Ha! You took the money.  Now you can't complain."

[HankB]

I saw Bobby Jindal talking about refusing some Fed stimulus money having to do with unemployment; he said words to the effect that accepting the money would require changing the law in Louisiana, which would end up being pretty expensive in the future to the State when Fed money ran out.

Well, how about that - a man who looks forward, and sees that programs created by today's windfall can end up costing you later on! Bravo!

[Jamisjockey]

I saw Bobby Jindal talking about refusing some Fed stimulus money having to do with unemployment; he said words to the effect that accepting the money would require changing the law in Louisiana, which would end up being pretty expensive in the future to the State when Fed money ran out.

Well, how about that - a man who looks forward, and sees that programs created by today's windfall can end up costing you later on! Bravo!

That's pretty much the reasoning behind any of them that are saying no.  The fed.gov is attaching strings that are going to cost the States more than they want to pay later.

[Werewolf]

Because of the Congressional earmarks, they can't just spend it on whatever they want, such as padding the state budget to allow for tax cuts, or debt service. Using the stimulus money will start an untold number of new public-sector agencies, expand existing ones, and create projects that will need funding in perpetuity.

Which is why in OK the legislature has already (to the best of my knowledge) made it law that no stimulous money will be accepted that will create new agencies/beaurocracies(sp?)/continuing mandates etc.

Or as the the guy who wrote the legislation put it: If it's gonna create a hole we'll be forever trying to fill with money we aren't going to accept it.

[AZRedhawk44]

This is actually really good for "flyover" America... those states that are running the 10th Amendment resolutions and whose governors are intent on skipping Porkulus.

Why?

When Porkulus runs out of money and states have to fund these directives, those states who refused them in the first place will be solvent (or at least MORE solvent) and those states who took it will be scrambling for an extra "X" billion dollars a year.

Where do they go?  To Uncle Sugar.

If Uncle Sugar says no (unlikely but possible), then they go and tax their business communities for it.  Business flees those states for the greener pastures of the non-Porkulus states.  The non-Porkers work hard and get fat and happy, while the Porkers continue to sink in their own socialist filth.

Ultimately it will come down to an attempt by Uncle Sugar to tax the self reliant states in an effort to sustain the Porkers, and the real gauntlet will be thrown down by either Montana, Wyoming or New Hampshire.  The "S" word could get thrown around even more than it is now.

[longeyes]

The first stirrings of the inevitable "divorce" that lies ahead.

[Jamisjockey]

The first stirrings of the inevitable "divorce" that lies ahead.

Sweet baby Buddah, enough.