Via the AP: GOP governors consider turning down stimulus money
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.
More accurately, it sounds like political posturing. State-level politicians often complain about the strings attached to federal funds. However, they rarely refuse them. The only counter-example I can think is that I want to say that Louisiana may have temporarily refused federal highway funds over the issue of drinking age, but they may have ultimately just threatened to do so (I know the issue was litigated and LA lost).
At any rate, it seems highly implausible, to put it mildly, that given the budget problems facing the states that anyone is going to be turning down federal checks. Beyond that, these aren’t decisions that governors can make in any event, so really all this is just so much bluster.
Just for the record, here’s what they are saying:
“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.’”
[...]
Sphere: Related ContentJindal said he, like Perry and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, is concerned about strings attached to the money even though his state faces a $1.7 billion budget shortfall next year.
Barbour spokesman Dan Turner, for example, cited concerns that accepting unemployment money from the stimulus package would force states to pay benefits to people who wouldn’t meet state requirements to receive them.
In Idaho, Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter said he wasn’t interested in stimulus money that would expand programs and boost the state’s costs in future years when the federal dollars disappear — a worry also cited by Jindal and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
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.
February 19th, 2009 at 10:21 am
State-level politicians often complain about the strings attached to federal funds.
This is just a silly position– conditions placed on fund transfer to states is essentially a defining characteristic of our federalist system.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:34 am
If Jindal does follow through, you can bet Palin will have to follow suit.
More to the point, I currently live in Nevada, and Nevada has had serious budget shortfalls for at least the second year in a row. The state legislature is currently in a special session to plug a large gap in the budget. They would love some of this money, but since a lot of it is matching funds, there currently isn’t a way to increase state spending on, say, education in order to qualify for the funds meant for education.
That’s the kind of detail you’d hope the feds would have noticed before signing their name to the bill.
Nevada, and other states, may end up refusing the money because it’s the only way to balance the books.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:39 am
The other way for the states to raise matching funds is to raise taxes. Yet another is to cut other spending. The idea that they should just take federal money without any responsibility is a fantasy. Some federal systems do work (more or less) that way. Argentina, for example. Presumably that’s not a model Republicans actually think we should emulate.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
The idea that they should just take federal money without any responsibility is a fantasy
Are you suggesting that the default position that the states take on these issues isn’t to take the money? And do you think that these governors are going to try and refuse the money?
February 19th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Or in the word “should” key?
February 21st, 2009 at 10:34 am
[...] follows on from a story I noted earlier in the [...]