GOP governors consider turning down stimulus money »
Posted By Eagle_Eye 8 months, 3 weeks ago in Political NewsBATON 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
Read Full Story at money.aol.com »
804 Views Share Story 68 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Eagle_Eye
I am a female who has lived a complex life with complex situations and have learned a lot from my experiences.
I love the Environment ...
Who Also Submitted:
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 68 (view all)
-
94%
not2needy8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What the hell is wrong with these people?? Party lines before the citizens of their states!! That's amazing, and an excellent way to get themselves voted out come next election.
Reply
EE, i was going to submit this one, glad you found it and submitted it G/F!!-
42%
Hhussk8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I find the comments fairly disingenuous.
Reply
Yesterday, liberals were arguing that Governor Palin was a wh*ore (Will1313) and had no convictions (ybdogsct) because she was going to take the money. Today, it's the other way around. She's a partisan because she'll be putting the conservative beliefs before her position and responsibilities as Governor.
This is the article in question:
http://www.propeller.com/story/2009/02/17/palin-ob...
It's tiring to watch you liberals climb over yourself to condemn "Position A over B", and then condemn "Position B over A" days later.
My position is that she probably should take the money, but only because the stimulus already offers it. Since we (Read: You and I) don't know the details of the package yet, the conditions the Federal Government puts on a state entirely dictate whether it would be safe to take the money...or risky.
The worst part of the liberal response is that they continuously want to talk about Palin, McCain, Cheney, et al., but they lack the resolve to debate the Obama Administration and current events affecting our country. -
100%
Eagle_Eye8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hi n2n, BFF!!!
Reply
If they don't accept this money then they are just hurting the people and their state.......as bad as California is hurting I don't see them not taking the money. ALL states are hurting and need this stimulus plan.
Here in Florida stimulus money is going to restore a huge wetland area which will benefit the aquafur, wildlife, habitat and provide jobs. Now that is some thing I can support. -
Neutral
the_heat8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Are you serious?
Reply
Party Lines?
Members of all parties are against this massive spending. The US has spent all of their money. There is no spending your way out of a problem when you are already trillions of dollars in debt (you have no right to spend money). Get a clue. Not accepting the money would mean taking a stance against deficit spending and robbing future generations of their quality of life.
The inflation from such ideas is just now beginning to hit. You thought last summer/fall was bad, I hope you have a huge amount of savings because we are going to see inflation like we haven't seen since the 70's.
I am but one of millions of Americans who agree that deficit spending and taking money that was created out of thin air is not a good idea.
-
-
90%
doppich8 months, 3 weeks ago
-
22%
Hhussk8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your attack on money received does not factor in the population of the state. Alaska, with its low population, stretches Federal Aid over more people than New York, with its extremely high population.
Reply
Once you factor in populations, you'll see that it's not about welfare. Although, I have doubts to your sincerity to facts.
-
-
100%
gamahuche8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cutting off the nose to spite the face is a time-honoured tradition among political ideologues.
Reply
What is hard to figure is why anyone other than their mums and dads ever votes for such twisted casuists.
"Casuistry ... destroys, by distinctions and exceptions, all morality, and effaces the essential difference between right and wrong." [Bolingbroke, 1736] -
-
-
the_heatComment removed: Spam
-
-
-
100%
Will13138 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree. but ..
Reply
Alaska is putting YOUR money aside..
they get back from Washington 1.75 (2005) figures.. for every dollar they send TO Washington...
so it in essence IS YOUR MONEY THEY PUT ASIDE.. while the people that LIVE IN ALASKA get nice big checks from the oil revenues.. you live in Texas. do you get money for Texas oil..
which also brings the question....
didn't the USA. .. purchase Alaska from Russia.. so why is the oil revenue only given to residents of Alaska.. doesn't it belong to America.. ??
as to California seems that Washington might just owe them something.. they only get back .78 for every dollar they send to Washington..
but I agree Drill till it hurts. -
-
0%
Albmore8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To voice out against this pork bill is correct. Everyone you signed it without even reading it is NO representative of the people. WE spend OUR money to send these people to washington to do the home work and make decissions in OUR interest. WELL committing so much money in such a reckless way without even reading it in full is shamfull.
Reply
NOW , to not accept this money would also be not representing your people. What do you think will happenend with the money that is given back? -
-
-
-
Republicrat1844Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
100%
orndorffter8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Those people are crazy, they dont want the money for their State, Well if they dont take it as hard as the people are haveing it, they well be voted out just as not2needy said, this is crazy when they know their State needs the money bad. So sorry guys you were voted in and you can be voted out.
Reply -
Neutral
chevydog8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There's a fine balance here that's often ignored. Money is not just money; it's also potential control. If I'm from the Federal govt., I want this money to go for the purposes for which it was appropriated. And I want some sort of mechanism to insure it--standard reports, audits, and the like. And penalties if it wasn't used the way I wanted it. If I'm the state govt, I may have needs that the Feds in their infinite wisdom may have overlooked. I'd like to have money--just money, no strings attached. There's a built-in potential for conflict here; nothing new--it's always been there.
Reply -
-
Neutral
cspezial8 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I was reading through some of the posts - good points all. However, there seems to be a misconception in that "all states are hurting". That really isn't the case. For example, Alaska revenues are up this year, and so that state, if managed correctly, doesn't really need a bailout. Do they have some road projects that they need to have done, sure - but NEED a bailout? Wyoming is another state that is on the bailout list, but if you look at the amount, I believe the latest numbers are $570,000. That's about a dollar p/resident. I would be proud if Wyo, and other fiscally responsible states, turned down the bailout money. For one, they don't need it, so give it to those that do. For another, for once I'd like to see some real leadership from our leaders! Set an example for the rest of the country. Is it not PC to shame someone into straightening up? We do it to an errant brother or cousin, maybe a friend - why can't we set examples for larger groups as well, such as other states, or the country as a whole? I wonder how that would go over - a little "flyover state" like Wyo can conduct itself properly, but New York and California have to run to Uncle Sam...
Reply -
More News
Fox News Politics
Obama Marks Fall of Berlin Wall as 'Rebuke of Tyranny'
Obama Draws Criticism for Sitting Out Berlin Wall Anniversary
Intelligence Officials Deny Sitting on Information About Fort Hood Shooter
Schumer Calls for Review as Millions in Stimulus Funds Aid Foreign Firms
White House Spent 'Weeks' Courting Lone GOP Vote on Health Care Bill
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.