GOP governors consider turning down some stimulus money

[Emit]

Ideology at play? An attempt to sabotage?

A half-dozen 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.

~snip~

"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.

~snip~

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.

~snip~

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."

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/02/18/ap6068212.html?loomia_ow=t0:a38:g26:r2:c0.018915375845:b22124252&partner=loomia

Related. Most of them now seem to be wanting to refuse, specifically, the expanded unemployment insurance money, and backing away from initial claims of refusing the stimulus funds entirely.

Wonder how many of their unemployed constituents feel about this?

~snip~

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford is a chief critic, saying it will deepen the nation's debt without stimulating the economy as Obama has promised. Several others have expressed similar misgivings, including Palin and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. He said Friday he would reject part of the stimulus plan aimed at expanding state unemployment insurance coverage.

No governor has explicitly rejected stimulus dollars, although some may decide not to accept portions of it.

In an interview, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour said he, too, would consider rejecting the expanded unemployment insurance money on the grounds that it would go to people who did not qualify for it.

"I will oppose my state changing our rule to allow people who are not willing and able to work full-time to get unemployment compensation. That will result in tax increases on our employers going forward," Barbour said.

~snip~

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100958407

~snip~

In a statement, Jindal, who is slated to give the Republican response to President Barack Obama’s message to Congress on Tuesday, expressed concern that expanding unemployment insurance coverage would lead to increased unemployment insurance taxes later on.

“The federal money in this bill will run out in less than three years for this benefit and our businesses would then be stuck paying the bill,” Jindal said. “We must be careful and thoughtful as we examine all the strings attached to the funding in this package. We cannot grow government in an unsustainable way.”

Jindal is one of a small group of Republican governors, which includes South Carolina’s Mark Sanford and Mississippi’s Haley Barbour, who have said they might refuse some or all of the stimulus money targeted to their states.

In an interview Friday, Barbour said he, too, would likely decline funds for broadening access to unemployment insurance.

“Subject to learning more, my position is that Mississippi won’t accept funds that require us to have a tax increase later, because us to change our rules for qualifying for unemployment compensation,” he said.

~snip~

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19092.html

[Bicoastal]

1. Yeah, Barbour, your state doesn't need any assistance...

...economically Mississippi is doing just fine on its own.

[blm]

2. heh...just an early eye into the 2012 GOP primary. They're offff...and away to a far right start

.

[shadowrider]

3. If I were to offer to GIVE you $10,000

but not tell you what you could and could not use it for until after you accepted it, you'd be wary of taking it, wouldn't you? Wouldn't you want to know what, if any, strings were attached?

For example, I have an account with a finance company right now. I've made my payments on time and far exceed the minimum due. I've been rewarded with an offer to miss a payment on any given month with (apparently) no penalty. However, the string that's attached says that if I do miss that payment, the next one will take 2 months worth of insurance before the interest, meaning the interest clock ticks for an extra month which is then owed at the end of the loan. It's costing me $75 ($150 if you include not making an interest payment on the next payment I make, plus the month of interest that keeps clicking during my missed payment month) to miss a payment. I don't want that string attached, so I decline their offer to miss a payment.

I think these governors are simply waiting to see what the strings are. They'd gladly take the money if there were no strings attached and they were allowed to spend in the way they see fit. They don't want the Fed to dictate it. Nothing more, nothing less. I wouldn't blame any governor, of any party, for taking their time before accepting.

[otohara]

4. Bunk

You're giving these Republican politicians far too much credit for being thoughtful and thorough.

No, this is about rejecting Obama's policies, period. Oh...and the possibility of each of them having higher aspirations to further their political careers in 2010, 2012.

[Emit]

7. It appears that Barbour is concerned about giving Uninsurance Benefits to people who he says don't

'deserve' them or qualify for them. I read somewhere that the Stimulus package included some of the proposals of the Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act, which would provide incentives to cover low and part-time wage workers who are often denied benefits under the current UI system. I have also read studies that show increasing states' UI to workers is a positive way to stimulate the economy while also providing benefit to the out of work worker and his/her family.

Thus, it appears that Barbour's stance on this UI thing is more of an ideological issue - his opinion seems that workers should just 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps,' suck it up and deal; that receiving UI is a 'welfare issue;' or that extending UI is a 'disincentive' to workers, etc. ~~ i.e., basic Repug talking points.

[truebrit71]

8. Sorry but that is complete bullshit...there is nothing 'savvy' about why they are doing this...

...it is 100% about the politics....

[cliffordu]

9. Your analysis would hold water if the players involved weren't craven assbites and

cowards.


As it is they will shit on any number of their constituents to gain national political office......

And this move by them is grandstanding, and nothing else.

[ecstatic]

5. Dems should politicize this NOW. A chance to make inroads in red

states. Somehow I doubt they will take advantage of the opening...

[muntrv]

6. Enjoy that depression in your states, pukes.

[kwenu]

10. Let them "consider" all they want. I just want to know who actually says NO and refuses it.