Guess How Many Governors Refused Their States Portion Of The Socialist Stimulus Money?

Doug Yarbrough posted on April 08, 2009 00:00 |

At first it was all going down just as you'd expect it to. Basically all the Republicans in the House and Senate said “HELL NO SOCIALIST, GO SUCK A TELEPROMPTER” when the President asked them to vote yes on the stimulus package. There was endless rhetoric, but they knew they were powerless to stop it's passage. So their no votes were really no more than hollow protest.

A lot of Republican Governors echoed this sentiment. One of them was our favorite, Sarah “thanks but no thanks, now give it here” Palin. She is the Governor of Alaska, of course, a state that pays its residents to live there from massive oil revenues, yet still manages to have a billion dollar deficit. Her part of the story begins when she said she I'm Gonna Take A Stand! Yep, You Betcha! *wink* rejected 31 percent of the nearly $1 billion in available funds. Actually, it appears she tried to get away with claiming a higher figure but was promptly called out on that when everyone realized she was leaving out some of the funds slated to go to Medicare to boost the number. Ultimately her office was forced to “clarify” her original refusal to take these funds and say that the state legislature will have to be the ones to request that part of the money, of which the lions share goes toward education. So basically it's “no thanks, but my state legislature will get that from you while I grandstand for the sake of my Presidential aspirations”.

Another Governor to talk the talk, then walk over to his desk and file for that sweet free money is Texas Governor Rick Perry. Oh, but he has his caveats as well. The Texas Governor wants nothing to do with $555 million in unemployment benefits, enough to raise the weekly check received by every unemployed Texan by twenty-five dollars. Further, their unemployment fund will become insolvent by fall if a new source of funding is not found. A tax on businesses is how this Yes Rick, We See What You're Up To will be achieved in the absence of Federal funds. Gee, maybe thats why the money was alloted to them? Of course the same thing applies here as in snowbilly country. The legislature can still say “hey fuck you, we want it”. Or they can compromise, but this means that Perry would have to take the money first. This of course speaks nothing of the other roughly $16.5 billion headed into the state without much debate.

Lastly, let's take a look at the most high profile “holdout” of them all, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. Sanford wins the “I can hold out longest” contest, and boy is he something for doing that. What an achievement, to wait until the last moment to do something that everyone knew he ultimately would. So what's his big stand on? Well, he is not so sure about this whole “$700 million for education and law enforcement” deal. No Need For Alt Text Here! He is apparently the only one though. In fact, his own state legislature may have to just go ahead and disagree with him in order to get this portion of the $8 billion dollars set aside for South Carolina. See a pattern forming here?

The Republicans, from top to bottom have been saying all along that this thing is a bad deal. They voted against it knowing goddamn well it was going through anyway. And then the people actually responsible for accepting the money, instead of taking a stand and saying “You know what? Our guy at the federal level was unable to stop this thing, but I damn sure can stop our states portion of the money from being spent.” have instead sent letters of certification to the White House, accepting the funds.

The truth is, they want it. Oh, they have their little stands to make, on little portions of the money. But even that money can be used by a state if the states legislature can override a veto by their grandstanding Governors. Or the governors may continue to acquiesce in the face of overwhelming local opposition and call it “compromise”. Governors who all have eyes on the White House in 2012, one may add. But the simple fact is, the vast majority of this money is going to flow right down to your state and local governments no matter who is running them.

And that my dear friends brings me to the question posed in the title of this weeks column of filthy Liberal journalism. How many Governors rejected the terrible socialist money alloted them? Let me see here. Oh yeah I remember. Not a single one.

See you next week!

Actions: E-mail | Permalink | Comments (18) |

| |

Comments

# Kenny Powers

Wednesday, April 08, 2009 12:10 PM

Doug,

First of all, thanks for finally writing a column that I was able to understand. I don't lack skills in reading comprehension; your previous articles were just too poorly written for me to follow (if you insist, I'll point out some of the problems...).

So, since I finally am able to understand your point, I’ll leave my comments.

The reason Conservatives hate this stimulus package is simple. I think everyone agrees that the sub-prime mortgage industry is mostly to blame for our economic problems; don’t we? A lot of it had to do with greed (Bankers and Home Buyers). A couple of years ago “interest only” loans were widespread. Buyers were able to afford much larger homes; the loan officers were making bigger deals. Everything was great and everyone was "rich". That is, until the Home Owners couldn’t afford to “pay the Piper”.

Now, I’m all for helping people. If a friend/family member was in trouble and asked me for help then I’d do my best to lend a hand (assuming that I have the means). However, if a friend/family member takes out a loan in my name without my approval there is going to be hell to pay.

That is how I (and most conservatives) see this stimulus package; as a MASSIVE interest-only loan that is being taken out in our name(s). The same exact thing that got us in this mess is now more-or-less Washington's solution. And if this does work to “stimulate” the economy, all we are doing as a country is moving into a “house” that we can’t afford. Doug, you better be saving your pennies for when this bill comes due.

So, what options do Sara Palin/Rick Perry/Mark Sanford have? We know that despite our wishes we are going to be responsible to pay for this loan that is being taken out in our name(s). Do you suggest that Sara should “buck the system” and allow her state tax-payers to pay for projects in Illinois/New York/California and not get anything out of it? You must be a fool…

One last thing: You mention that Alaska is “a state that pays its residents to live there from massive oil revenues, yet still manages to have a billion dollar deficit.” You might do well to look into those figures. Here is a web-page to help you out (http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2502592).

I know writing for insidestl.com doesn't have the same readers as say "The Wall Street Journal", but don't treat this like it's amature hour.

# Kenny Powers

Wednesday, April 08, 2009 12:13 PM

NOTE: sorry, I pasted the wrong link.

Here is the correct one:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/11/17/us/20081117_budget_graphic.html

# jimby

Wednesday, April 08, 2009 1:40 PM

Well said Kenny. Doug are you simply bashing fiscal conservatives or do you actually think this stimulus plan is a good idea?

# st. louisville cards

Wednesday, April 08, 2009 5:18 PM

I think this stimulus bill is terrible and defies all logic. It will do nothing to stimulate the economy, but even if it was going to stimulate the economy the money could be used a lot smarter. That being said, Dougie makes a great point with his article, the Repubs TALK about how the stimulus is bad (just as when they held all the power from 2002-2006 they talked about smaller govt), but when it comes to getting and spending money the repubs are no different than the dems (just as how from 2002-2006 the repubs grew the gov't and debt considerably). The fact of the matter is both parties have one priority, get elected, everything else is secondary to that.

# MikeLee

Thursday, April 09, 2009 1:00 AM

I think you all missed the point that the republicans wouldn’t vote for the stimulus but all took the money. I got it and I’m retarded I can pitch for the cardinals

# cardsbadabing

Thursday, April 09, 2009 1:45 AM

Kenny, good analogy and rebuttal. What about the bank execs that DON'T want the bailout money? There are quite a few. Look at Ford Motor Co. - they don't want the bailout money either. The difference is that Obama said the banks HAVE to take the money. So tell me how that's a good use of taxpayer money???

As far as the national debt is concerned, Obama has been in office for about 2 months and he has already allocated more budget money and national debt than Bush rang up in 8 years, the last two of which the Dems had power in Congress.

Can Doug or anyone else explain that and how it will further impact the economy???

# Kenny Powers

Thursday, April 09, 2009 4:12 PM

St. Louisville: I agree with the analysis that Republicans didn't do much better and unless they change their ways they won’t win again. Presently, I don't even associate the Republicans as actual conservatives. I wouldn't mind if everyone in Washington was fired! If Doug's message was the same as yours I wouldn't have an argument.

MikeLee: I understood Doug's point; they (Republicans) bitched and moaned about the money and then took it anyway. Basically, Doug was saying "All they want to do it grandstand." He was saying their either full of shit about what they were saying OR they don't have enough principals to stand by their word. My point was that the Governors HAVE to take it because the people they represent are going to have to pay for it.

I think the bigger question that Doug should consider is: If the Federal Govt. gave each state the option of participating in the Stimulus Package (by participating I mean, if Missouri says "No" then citizens of Missouri aren't responsible to pay on the back-end), how many States would reject it?

But that isn't the case. As it stands, the citizens of Missouri are going to be responsible for the 'fall out' of this plan, regardless of if we take the money or not.

Cardsbad further illustrated in his comment that this thing is being forced on us. It's being forced on me (even though I don’t want it), it's being forced on the large banks (even if they don't want it), and we're all going to be forced to pay in the end. Wait, let me correct that. Those who have done ‘well’ in life will be forced to pay in the end. (If you don’t have anything to give, then you are sitting in a pretty good situation)

# The Drake

Thursday, April 09, 2009 8:35 PM

Doug - it's simple... Conservatives are AGAINST using their tax money to bailout banks, recieve stimulus packages, etc... However, it is still taxpayer money, conservative or liberal. So if the gov't is going to spend their money, they aren't going to turn it down. That money belongs to the consituents of the governor's states, and they can't just say, "we're not accepting money which already came out of our states' pockets."

# Doug Yarbrough

Friday, April 10, 2009 4:53 AM

Hey! Sorry to leave you guys all alone in the echo chamber for 2 days, but “a mans gotta eat” as they say. So let me hit a few points and respond to you If I may. I'll just go down the list.

@ Kenny Powers. On your opening statement, the shift from quick hit blog posts to full columns was admittedly a difficult transition, but one that I was determined to undertake. I'm glad you have stayed to see what happens. I won't ask you to point out any specific grammatical errors, because it seems I've worked them out enough on my own in sufficient fashion to meet your minimal standards and that's good enough for me.

As for the cause of our economic crisis, I think you would all be deprived if you did not take a look at this excellent and non-partisan explanation of the mechanics of what has happened. Here is the link:

http://www.crisisofcredit.com/

As for your analogy, I understand very well how you feel. I had a President a few years back that executed a preemptive attack on a sovriegn nation that had no capacity to harm us in any way. A country run by a prick no different than the pricks running many many other countries. I disagreed, but that President still spent my money to do it whether I liked it or not. Boy did that sting! You are entitled to complain, as an American.

Also, this whole conservative vs. Republican thing is utterly tiresome to me. What kind of conservative are you? Social? Economic? Do you love the free market? Do you embrace economic darwinism while shunning science? The two parties a re umbrellas for sweeping trains of thought, and distancing yourself from a party of conservatism while calling yourself a conservative is ridiculous to me. You're a republican, and that's OK. Do you think theres not a single plank on the Democratic platform that doesn't give me splinters?

And what option do all the Republican Governors have? And I mean all of them, not just the five that have been making waves.The option I see, if they are such great conservatives, is to unite and take a stand and say “hey you know what? If we ALL reject this money, that will reduce the amount the people in our state are responsible for astronomically. Your argument says that these Governors are somehow obligated, by what I don't know, to throw good money after bad.

As for Alaska, I'm not going to challenge you on that. I read what I read and that's what it said. You found something different. Welcome to the Internet.

@ jimby: You say I was bashing fiscal conservatives. Well, read again. I never mentioned the term “fiscal conservatives” and further, I didn't bash anybody. I plainly stated what I see to be an attempt by potential Republican candidates to take the money they have coming while still being able to say they “rejected” and “fought” the stimulus bill, and the funds alloted by it, come campaign time. Do you really not see that? Also be sure to note that I pointed out that in each case vast sums of money are entering these same states without fanfare while these Governors I speak of raise protest to tiny fractions of the funds allotted to them.

@ cardsbadabing: Please give some more information on bailout funds being forced upon certain entities. Especially regarding Ford.

@ The Drake: Not to give you the cold shoulder, but I feel that my Fifth paragraph adressing Kenny's points adequately replies to your point.

# Doug Yarbrough

Friday, April 10, 2009 5:08 AM

Ah ha ha! As I live and breath I beat Politico to the motherfuckin' point. My column posted Wednesday and a politico story posted Late Thursday: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21086.html

You're late suckas!

# The Drake

Friday, April 10, 2009 12:19 PM

Doug - your lack of comprehension is incredible... let me explain it, so that even a 6th grader could understand it.

IF you owned a company with 3 other investors, partners, you have would have a 1/4 stake in the company. Let's say the owners are discussing a new company matter, and that matter is that three of the other owners want to build a workout center. You are the one owner, who thinks it's needless spending, and will do nothing to help the company's overall revenue and future profits.

But, three of them vote FOR the workout center, with your vote being the one against it. Majority rules, the Company is going to pay for the workout center, part of it with YOUR share... but despite 1/4 of the bill coming out of your pocket, the other owners tell you that you can't use the gym. Afterall, you were against it.... even though you ended up paying for it.

# The Drake

Friday, April 10, 2009 12:26 PM

And Doug... you ask. "what kind of Conservative are you?"

THERE IS ONLY ONE KIND OF CONSERVATIVE ... CONSERVATIVE.

Anything else, is a different kind of politics. That's why you have NO clue... someone with a clue wouldn't ask such a retarded question.

# Doug Yarbrough

Friday, April 10, 2009 12:52 PM

Drake you miss my point. What im saying is, if we use your analogy,for the sixth graders, that your no vote would reduce the amount spent by 1/4. So even though you still cant use the equipment, you would alsohave reduced the amount you are forced to pay. This is simple economics dude. I don't know the ratio of Democratic governors to Republicans, but I would hazard a guess that the entire stimulus plan could have been cut roughly in half. All you are doing is proving my point. They want the money, because their people want the money. So yeah, you will pay, but you don't want to. And you will complain, and again, thats your right.

As for the other all caps wingnut ranting, uh, yeah. Actually there is fiscal conservatism, which made people want to vote for Ron Paul, and then there's social conservatism, which is what Sarah Palin plays to.

Say what you want now Drake. I'm not going to continue to engage someone so angry and un-willing to have a civil discussion.

# st. louisville cards

Friday, April 10, 2009 1:58 PM

Doug,
I don't think your logic wins out here. I think the Governor split is 30-20 Dems over repubs. On top of that there are 7-8 moderate Repub govenors who are either republican in name only (Schwartenegger) or are christian conservative republicans who veer toward a larger government (Perdue). So that leaves 12 or 13 republican governors who talk about a smaller government and who likely criticized the stimulus bill.
So the question they face is not whether the stimulus bill is good or bad it is whether they should have to payback $12 Billion dollars and get nothing or payback $17 billion and get $17 Billion (obviously each state isn't getting the same amount of the stimulus bill, but you get the point). At best they could have knocked a quarter off the stimulus bill, which is also unlikely as the money would have just been spent elsewhere by another govenor or the federal government.

# Kenny Powers

Friday, April 10, 2009 1:58 PM

Doug,

I am glad you responded. I don't pretend to know everything; I like these discussions because I like to hear what others think so that I am a better learner. So I appreciate your dialogue (though we don't see eye to eye).

Are you trying to say that if Palin rejects the stimulus money that the citizens of Alaska wont be responsible to pay the taxes to make up for what was done in the rest of the country? Because here is the thing, the stimulus money ISNT coming out of some "surplus account" that we have had stored away for a tough time. The money being spend on the stimulus package doesn't exist. The Feds put together their figures on how much money they were going to "shove" into the economy. If Alaska rejects their portion then it will be spent elsewhere. (i.e. Alaska says no, their money goes to the states that say yes, but Alaskans still have to pay federal taxes for these projects that they didn't recieve).

As far as the money being forced on companies; it definately is happening with the banks. You asked about Ford (and I haven't heard of it being forced on them) but it is happening to banks. It is well documented and since you write about politics I'm surprised that you haven't heard about it. Actually, I don't know how you could have possibly missed it, unless you just didn't want to hear it!?!

# cardsbadabing

Friday, April 10, 2009 6:14 PM

Ford said they DIDN'T want any bailout money like GM and Chrysler even though they're losing money every day. They weren't forced to like banks are told to do. Both of these issues have been on the headlines, but the liberal press has passed over the reasoning behind it which several commenters on this column have touched on.

I will dig up a list of the banks that want to reject the bailout money. U.S. Bank is one, I bank there and actually asked the branch manager about it in passing.

The difference is that Obama has told the banks they HAVE to take the money, even if they don't want it. Again, who's paying for this? Taxpayers.

# Rattler555

Tuesday, April 14, 2009 11:57 AM

By Obama telling the banks that they have to take the money is just another under the table way of taxing all the banks. You ask why? The banks must all pay interest on this money that is lent to them by us, the taxpayers. That interest goes straight to Washington. Have we all been granted stock in AIG, USB, Wachovia, GM? If so, I haven't seen it on my portfolio, anyone else?

Guess How Many Governors Refused Their States Portion Of The Socialist Stimulus Money?

Comments

Post Comment