Governors v. Congress

[BrokenAngel]

If state legislatures override the governor, said governor will have no choice but to take the money and said state legislatures become the tool of the federal government in its attempt to erode the sovereign rights of states.

did you not read this part?

The problem for these Governors is that they may be forced to spend the federal money whether they want it or not. Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina slipped a little-noticed provision into the stimulus bill giving state legislatures the power to overrule Governors and spend the money "by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution." Most state legislatures are versions of Congress; they can't say no to new spending.



Talk about the fucking feds doing an end run around states rights.

The positive thing to come out of this mess is that some of the states have had it with the feds. New Hampshire is being an example and a leader in a movement to try and force the general government's hand and put the power back where the constitution says it should be, in the hands of the states.

Apparently since I haven't posted 15 posts yet I will need you to look up HCR 6 on your own to read what I am wishing to reference.

For those of you that aren't familiar with this piece of legislature, it is merely to point out what the feds are doing wrong and to ask them to abide by the Constitution. New Hampshire is not looking to leave the nation. Their example though has stirred other states to write up a similar bill of their own.

 

[xsited1]

Just to update this thread:

Washington Wire - WSJ.com : Tennessee's Democratic Governor Weighs Rejecting Stimulus Funds

 

[Ravi]

Just to update this thread:

Washington Wire - WSJ.com : Tennessee's Democratic Governor Weighs Rejecting Stimulus Funds

He's probably going to trigger the same anger in his state.

 

[editec]

I understand their objections.

If the government is using the stimulus money to impose still more rules on the states that will BECOME unfunded mandates, then it might behoove the state to refuse the money.

Good for those state governors who are taking control of their finances.

Obama might be very wise to take their complaints seriously.

 

[Skull Pilot]

another in the theme of the thread

Scott Walker Refuses Stimulus Money for Milwaukee - WSJ.com

 

[Ravi]

BATON ROUGE - Louisiana's transportation department plans to request federal dollars for a New Orleans to Baton Rouge passenger rail service from the same pot of railroad money in the president's economic stimulus package that Gov. Bobby Jindal criticized as unnecessary pork on national television Tuesday night.

Louisiana to seek New Orleans-Baton Rouge passenger rail line from federal stimulus pot that Jindal called wasteful - Breaking News from New Orleans - Times-Picayune - NOLA.com

 

[BrianH]

Several Republican Governors Decline Federal Stimulus Money - WSJ.com

Debt-laden state governments were supposed to be the big winners from the $787 billion economic stimulus bill. But at least five Republican Governors are saying thanks but no thanks to some of the $150 billion of "free" money doled out to states, because it could make their budget headaches much worse down the line. And they're right.

These Governors -- Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Butch Otter of Idaho, Rick Perry of Texas and Mark Sanford of South Carolina -- all have the same objection: The tens of billions of dollars of aid for health care, welfare and education will disappear in two years and leave states with no way to finance the expanded programs. Mr. Perry sent a letter to President Obama last week warning that Texas may refuse certain stimulus funds. "If this money expands entitlements, we will not accept it. This is exactly how addicts get hooked on drugs," he says.

Consider South Carolina. Its annual budget is roughly $7 billion and the stimulus will send about $2.8 billion to the state over two years. But to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars allocated to the likes of Head Start, child care subsidies and special education, the state will have to enroll thousands of new families into the programs. "There's no way politically we're going to be able to push people out of the program in two years when the federal money runs out," Mr. Sanford says.

The Medicaid money for states is also a fiscal time bomb. The stimulus bill temporarily increases the share of state Medicaid bills reimbursed by the federal government by two or three percentage points. High-income states now pay about half the Medicaid costs, and in low-income states the feds pay about 70%. Much of the stimulus money will cover health-care costs for unemployed workers and single workers without kids. But in 2011 almost all the $80 billion of extra federal Medicaid money vanishes. Does Congress really expect states to dump one million people or more from Medicaid at that stage?

The alternative, as we've warned, is that Congress will simply extend these transfer payments indefinitely. Pete Stark, David Obey and Nancy Pelosi no doubt intend exactly this, which could triple the stimulus price tag to as much as $3 trillion in additional spending and debt service over 10 years. But the states would still have to pick up their share of this tab for these new entitlements in perpetuity. Thanks, Washington.

Governors are protesting loudest over the $7 billion for unemployment insurance (UI) expansions. Under the law, states will increase UI benefits by $25 a week. The law also encourages states to cover part-time workers for the first time. The UI program is partly paid for by state payroll taxes imposed on employers of between 0.5% and 1% of each worker's pay. Mr. Barbour says that in Mississippi "we will absolutely have to raise our payroll tax on employers to keep benefits running after the federal dollars run out. This will cost our state jobs, so we'd rather not have these dollars in the first place."

The problem for these Governors is that they may be forced to spend the federal money whether they want it or not. Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina slipped a little-noticed provision into the stimulus bill giving state legislatures the power to overrule Governors and spend the money "by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution." Most state legislatures are versions of Congress; they can't say no to new spending.

These five Governors deserve credit for blowing the whistle on the federal trap that Washington has set for their budgets. They stand in contrast to most of the other Governors, who are praising the stimulus as a way to paper over their fiscal holes through 2010. But money from Congress is never as free as it looks, as the banks can attest. Don't be surprised if two years from now states are still facing mountainous deficits. They will have their Uncle Sam to thank.

Have them send it to bank account number 92113-9425-214 instead.

 

[DiveCon]

BATON ROUGE - Louisiana's transportation department plans to request federal dollars for a New Orleans to Baton Rouge passenger rail service from the same pot of railroad money in the president's economic stimulus package that Gov. Bobby Jindal criticized as unnecessary pork on national television Tuesday night.

Louisiana to seek New Orleans-Baton Rouge passenger rail line from federal stimulus pot that Jindal called wasteful - Breaking News from New Orleans - Times-Picayune - NOLA.com

uh, that is a LIE
not the same funds
sheesh the media are nothing but a bunch of fucking LIARS

how the fuck can they claim transportation funds are the same as unemployment funds