A handful of Republican governors are considering turning down some money from the federal stimulus package – despite provisions that congressional Democrats inserted into the law that could pit these chief executives against their legislatures.
Though none has outright rejected the money available for education, healthcare, and infrastructure, the governors of Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alaska, South Carolina, and Idaho have questioned whether the $787 billion bill signed into law this week will even help the economy.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a potential 2012 GOP presidential candidate, has suggested that his state might not be interested in all of the roughly $4 billion allotted to it in the economic stimulus package President Barack Obama signed Tuesday.
"We'll have to review each program, each new dollar to make sure that we understand what are the conditions, what are the strings and see whether it's beneficial for Louisiana to use those dollars," Jindal said, according to CBS affiliate WWLTV.
Jindal is scheduled to give the response to the president’s not-exactly-a-state-of-the-union address next Tuesday.
In Texas, Republican Gov. Rick Perry considered rejecting some of the money but then decided to accept it. But he’s still very much worried about federal red tape.
"My concern is there's going to be commitments attached to it that are a mile long," Perry told the Associated Press. "We need the freedom to pick and choose. And we need the freedom to say 'No thanks.'"
Democrats say the governors are playing politics, eying a bid for the White House in 2012 with one eye on the fiscally conservative Republican base. U.S. Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., the No. 3 House Democrat, said the governors are putting their own interests first.
"No community or constituent should be denied recovery assistance due to their governor's political ideology or political aspirations," Clyburn said Wednesday.
The GOP governors also run the risk of being overridden by their own legislatures because of specific language Clyburn included in the bill that allows lawmakers to accept the federal money even if their governors object.
Clyburn told the AP that he inserted the provision based on the early and vocal opposition to the stimulus plan by South Carolina's Republican governor, Mark Sanford. But it also means governors like Sanford and Jindal — a GOP up-and-comer often mentioned as a potential 2012 presidential candidate — can burnish their conservative credentials, knowing all the while that their legislatures can accept the money anyway.
Jindal said he, like Perry and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, is concerned about strings attached to the money even though his state faces a $1.6 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.
"We're going through a 1,200-page bill to determine what our options are," spokesman Joel Sawyer said. "From there, we'll make decisions."
Sanford recently told Newsmax that the stimulus “has a lot of deficiencies. I think it’s going to make the problem bigger and longer.
“It’s a package that will balloon deficit spending, and I think we’re getting to the tipping point in regard to the value of the dollar,’’ Sanford said in a Newsmax interview this month, before the final version of the stimulus was signed into law. “We can go too far in running the printing presses. We really risk trashing the dollar and undermining every bit of stimulus or so-called stimulus that’s been implemented to date.
“If you look at the history of the Great Depression, it was brought about, in fact, by government policy that made the problem much bigger than when it started. I think we’re headed down that same road, unfortunately.”
In Mississippi, Barbour and his staff have been going through the new stimulus law page by page, trying to determine whether accepting the money could add more costs to state government. One of the sticking points for the Republican governor is the potential of having to pay unemployment benefits to those laid off from part-time jobs, according to the Sun Herald, a south Mississippi newspaper.
A spokesman for Barbour said Tuesday evening the governor’s staff was going through the hundreds of pages of the law “looking at each segment to make a conscious decision whether it’s best for Mississippi.”
“For instance, unemployment,” said Dan Turner. “We believe it will require Mississippi to provide unemployment for people who won’t accept full-time employment.”
Turner said that would be a first for Mississippi and, therefore, “a leap.”
“Is that something we want to commit to long term?” Turner said. He said they are trying to determine whether the state or federal government would pay for it after the first few years.
Not all Republican governors are reticent about using the federal cash.
Florida Gov. Charlie Crist lobbied for the stimulus plan and Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue has embraced it as he looks to close a $2.6 billion deficit in the state's budget this year. Alabama Gov. Bob Riley has already figured the money into his state's budget.
But Congressional GOP leaders and the Republican National Committee has not let up in its criticism of the massive new spending law.
“The flawed bill the President will sign today is a missed opportunity, one for which our children and grandchildren will pay a hefty price," said House Minority Leader John Boehner Tuesday. "It’s a raw deal for American families, providing just $1.10 per day in relief for workers while saddling every family with $9,400 in added debt to pay for special-interest programs and pork-barrel projects. It will do little to create jobs, and will do more harm than good to middle-class families and our economy."
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
|
