-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 39 comments
-
DeMint's Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant...And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
I was as staunchly opposed to the Obama stimulus package as anybody, but I really don't see the point in Republican governors refusing to accept money that the federal government will be handing out to states. Howard Kurtz's column today tries to portray it as hypocritical for stimulus opponents to accept government cash, and there's some disappointment among conservatives that Mark Sanford, a vocal critic of the stimulus bill, suggested he's open to accepting money allocated to South Carolina.
Here's the thing. Yes, in a folk hero sort of way, it would be great fun to see Republican governors refuse to accept the money. But on a practical level, I don't see how it makes any sense. The battle is over. The forces who want to spend more taxpayer money won. If every Republican governor refused to accept the stimulus money, it's not like Congress would go back and reduce the cost of the stimulus package by that amount. Taxpayers in South Carolina will be partially subsidizing all of the stimulus spending no matter whether they like it or not. So, they may as well get what they can out of the stimulus package, and try their best to spend the money as productively as possible.
The theory that those governors who opposed the stimulus package should reject the stimulus money is equivalent to taxpayers refusing to use government programs or services which they oppose. Followed to its logical conclusion, that would mean I can't ever ride Amtrak, because I want it to be fully private, or that I can't collect whatever is left of Social Security when I reach retirement, because I want the option to invest my payroll taxes in private accounts.
And the other idea -- that Sanford should reject the stimulus funds and force the state legislature to overturn his decision -- seems like needless theatrics to me. If a Sanford were to reject funds knowing that he'll be forced to accept them anyway, he may as well just accept them in the first place.
View all comments (15) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/02/20/go-ahead-gop-govs-accept-the-s
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Useless Wonks
- Common Prayer, Uncommon Beauty
- Mission Implausible
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
I am a talking head - serious| 2.20.09 @ 11:34AM
I may have missed something, but I believe that if bailout money is accepted, states are required to increase entitlement spending. Entitlement programs and the rediculous retirement benefits afforded to government employees are a large reason many state budgets have ballooned the way that they have in recent years. However, if the states do not accept the money they will be forced to make cuts to wasteful spending. I think that in the long term it makes sense to cut a government budget by say 5 billion a year and go through the pain of not getting the "free lunch" that the federal government is offering. If this money came with no strings attached I would agree with you, however a refusal of federal bailout funds leaves states an opportunity to correct the real issue... their inflated budgets. Acceptance not only prolongs, but worsens the issue.
Real American| 2.20.09 @ 11:35AM
Sanford and other GOP governors who oppose the porkulous bill should offer a tax cut or rebate to its citizens equivalent to every dollar it receives from this bill. And all other spending in the state budgets should be cut to offset dollar for dollar the pork received.
Thomas| 2.20.09 @ 11:54AM
There is no such thing as a free lunch, especially where the federal government is concerned. I am a talking head is exactly on the mark there. Whenever a state accepts federal funding, for anything, that state surrenders some of its sovereignty. In order to receive this money, the state must meet federal guidelines, many of which have little or nothing to do with uses for which the money is earmarked. The same is true of the porkulus funds. The porkulus money will further increase the power of the federal government at the expense of the state and local governments.
Remember, states can not just print currency to fund projects, as the federal government is doing to fund the various stimulus and relief bills. If they could, then we would all go down the toilet more quickly.
One Hung Low| 2.20.09 @ 12:35PM
I'm staunchly against the Stimulus (as it were), but all governors have an obligation to stand in line on behalf of their constituents for their portion of the crap sandwich.
Let's not conflate matters. It is one thing to oppose passage of the Porkulus and very much another to refuse the funds after it has been passed.
Now, let's get to work in getting conservatives voted into Congress for 2010 so we can minimize the damage.
Pingback| 2.20.09 @ 2:08PM
Stimulus » The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Go Ahead GOP Govs, Accept … links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Marc Jeric| 2.20.09 @ 2:30PM
There may be merit in refusing some porkulus money on the part of the states. For example, there is some $9 billion aimed at the ACORN brownshirts and "community stabilization" thugs that Republican governers should be very weary to accept.
Dale Mader| 2.20.09 @ 9:26PM
Howard Kurtz is a liberal who occasionally throws a bone to conservatives to appear unbiased. If he ever writes a column chastising wealthy Democrats who advocate higher taxes but refuse to pay more (or even their lawful share) voluntarily, I'll be astounded.
I am not a victim| 3.10.09 @ 7:40PM
I am ABSOLUTELY astounded by the victim mentality of some Americans. Have we been so misused, abused and manipulated that we have decided to put up more of a "stink" about giving taxpayer money BACK to taxpayers to stimulate our own economy than we did about using taxpayer money to bailout corporations, provide golden parachutes and pour into Wall Street - that is currently in a "black hole" state? We have been convinced that the demise of major corporations and financial institutions would leave us in a far worse state than the demise of the very people that have the power to keep their doors open. This conversation convinces me that most of us are all too familiar with being used and subsequently discarded and disregarded. We have, somehow, come to accept that we deserve to scramble for crumbs and make the most out of very little in a country that, even in the worst recession/depression in history, is still envied by the rest of the world. Meanwhile, a few hoard and/or squander what the majority is desperately trying to hold on to. I picture the latter as a battered woman with unrealized and unclaimed strength and power. How unfortunate.
Pingback| 3.11.09 @ 6:52AM
Sanford will steal stimulus money from the people - just to make a point. | Verbal Pa links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ben Dover| 3.17.09 @ 3:25PM
Democrats- If you vote for them, they will spend.
Am I the only one who was saying, back before the election, "where the H*LL is this money going to come from?"?
I don't know what you people were thinking voting that idoit in.
This is what 144 days of experience will get you. Nice job America.
Payday Loans| 7.4.09 @ 5:23PM
I found lots of interesting information here. The post was professionally written and I feel like the author has extensive knowledge in the subject. Keep it that way.
payday loans canada