If you oppose stimulus, don't take the money

Spencer Collins · #1 (**permalink**) 02-16-2009, 04:59 PM

Quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina took umbrage at my writing that his approach to the economic crisis is to do nothing. I'll deal with his "ideas" in a moment, but first let me make a modest proposal:

If Republican politicians are so deeply opposed to President Obama's economic recovery plan, they should refuse to take the money. After all, if you think all that federal spending is damaging, there are easy ways to reduce it: Don't take federal money.

Gov. Sanford can lead the way. South Carolina should decline to accept any federal funds for transportation, education, health care, clean energy or any of the other ideas President Obama is advocating to fix the economy. And the rest of the GOP can follow suit.

Justice Louis Brandeis famously called states "laboratories of democracy." So let's experiment. Gov. Sanford can be the guinea pig. His Palmetto State already gets $1.35 back from Washington for every dollar it pays in federal taxes, according to 2005 numbers, the latest calculated by the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit tax research group.

South Carolina is a ward of the federal government. It's been on welfare for years. If Gov. Sanford is so all-fired opposed to federal spending, let's start by cutting federal spending in South Carolina. Otherwise, he's got about as much credibility on fiscal conservatism as A-Rod has on steroids.

Under the Bush-Sanford economic theories, South Carolina's unemployment rate has reached 9.5 percent -- among the highest in the nation. But if Gov. Sanford wants to continue those policies, good luck to him.

Make no mistake about it, Republicans like Gov. Sanford want to go back to the bad old days of George W. Bush. In his CNN.com column, Gov. Sanford expends 605 words attacking President Obama's plan to turn the country around after eight years of Bush-Republican-Sanford economics.

That is his right, but attacking President Obama's plan is not itself an alternative plan. Nor is dredging up hoary old gripes about the New Deal. Nor, indeed, is deriding neighborhood electric vehicles -- which create jobs, save money and reduce pollution -- as "streamlined golf carts." But that is what Gov. Sanford offers us.

Then Gov. Sanford turns to his ideas (keep in mind he was responding to my charge that he favors doing nothing). He devotes precisely one half of one sentence to his plan to save the world economy; 24 words that will create millions of jobs, restore liquidity to capital markets, protect investors and consumers, regenerate stagnant demand and restore the capitalist system. Here they are:

"... cutting the payroll tax, opening foreign markets through an expansion of our trade agreements, and reducing our corporate tax, which is among the highest worldwide."

Wow. As we say in the South, I've got the vapors. So cutting taxes and cutting trade deals will get us out of this mess? That's all we need to do?

We don't need to extend unemployment insurance, or update health information technology, or move to renewable energy or repair roads or rebuild bridges or modernize the power grid or prevent states and cities from laying off teachers and cops or any of the other myriad proposals in President Obama's plan?

To be sure, President Obama's plan includes tax cuts -- mostly for middle-class families. But cutting taxes on corporate profits is of little utility when there are no corporate profits to tax. And precisely with whom would Gov. Sanford cut these miraculous trade deals? In case he hasn't been watching CNN, the entire world economy is in the tank.

If cutting taxes for the rich and for big corporations and promoting foreign trade alone could energize the economy, we wouldn't be in this mess. But maybe Gov. Sanford is right. Let's keep our federal money -- give it to states where the governors will actually put it to good use. We'll let Gov. Sanford try his plan, we'll try President Obama's plan.

Something tells me Gov. Sanford won't take that gamble. Because for all his rhetoric about hating federal spending, he can't wait to get his hands on our money.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Paul Begala.

Commentary: If you oppose stimulus, don't take the money - CNN.com

For the most part...I support the stimulus plan. I do take issue with some aspects of this bill but that is true of most bills I've seen over the years.I believe a good point has been made here. If you "passionately" oppose almost every single aspect of this bill...don't accept the money!

cnredd · #2 (**permalink**) 02-16-2009, 08:30 PM

This article was written by someone who clearly didn't read the bill...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Begala; archbishop of Democrat kneepad wearers

If Republican politicians are so deeply opposed to President Obama's economic recovery plan, they should refuse to take the money. After all, if you think all that federal spending is damaging, there are easy ways to reduce it: Don't take federal money.

Gov. Sanford can lead the way. South Carolina should decline to accept any federal funds for transportation, education, health care, clean energy or any of the other ideas President Obama is advocating to fix the economy. And the rest of the GOP can follow suit.

That SOUNDS nice Paulie...

But apparently YOU didn't read the fine print in the stimulus bill...(get ready to get pissed OBJECTIVE members)...

The Punish Mark Sanford Amendment

Quote:

Buried in the porkulus conference report is a provision specifically targeting governors who would exercise the choice to refuse stimulus money.

It’s an obvious end-run around the authority of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, the outspoken GOP fiscal conservative who has staunchly opposed the behemoth federal package.

Read it:

SEC. 1607. (a) CERTIFICATION BY GOVERNOR — Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, for funds provided to any State or agency thereof, the Governor of the State shall certify that: 1) the State request and use funds provided by this Act , and; 2) funds be used to create jobs and promote economic growth.

(b) ACCEPTANCE BY STATE LEGISLATURE — If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State.

Can you believe it?...

For the last couple of centuries the governor signed off on all legislation dealing with their state's finances...

THREE FRIGGIN' WEEKS into an Obama administration they put new language out that basically says "If the governor of a state refuses to take the social engineering money we're shoving down their throat, their own state congress can override the governor and we'll listen to them instead."...

Any Obama supporter happy with this?...And can you see why Begala's article isn't worth the keyboard it's typed on?...

Michael1 · #3 (**permalink**) 02-18-2009, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

If you "passionately" oppose almost every single aspect of this bill...don't accept the money!

Sort of like how Democrats kept paying the higher tax rates when Reagan, Bush, Gingrich, and Bush cut taxes? Oh, that's right ... Democrats don't actually pay taxes, do they? Errr... at least not the ones who are part of the Obama administration.

faithful_servant · #4 (**permalink**) 02-18-2009, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael1

Sort of like how Democrats kept paying the higher tax rates when Reagan, Bush, Gingrich, and Bush cut taxes? Oh, that's right ... Democrats don't actually pay taxes, do they? Errr... at least not the ones who are part of the Obama administration.

How many of you liberals here pay what you think that all good Americans should be paying in taxes?? Do you pay just what the law requires you to or do you pay what the folks in Sweden (the country most pointed to by liberals in defence of social liberalism agendas) pay??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

dabateman · #5 (**permalink**) 02-18-2009, 07:46 PM

The problem with the analysis I've seen thus far is that it's nothing that hasn't been done before. A governor does not have to request funds for a state. A state legislature has always been able to apply for federal funds, just like local governments. Nothing new.

As for the taxation and spending arguments. BOTH PARTIES SUCK. I just happen to think that one sucks slightly less. *shrug*

Spencer Collins · #6 (**permalink**) 02-18-2009, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael1

Sort of like how Democrats kept paying the higher tax rates when Reagan, Bush, Gingrich, and Bush cut taxes? Oh, that's right ... Democrats don't actually pay taxes, do they? Errr... at least not the ones who are part of the Obama administration.

No..many Democrats do not pay taxes but this is also true Of many..perhaps even more.. on the Republican side!..

Michael1 · #7 (**permalink**) 02-19-2009, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spencer Collins

No..many Democrats do not pay taxes but this is also true Of many..perhaps even more.. on the Republican side!..

... no, they send Republicans who don't pay their taxes to jail. When they find Dems who cheat on their taxes they let them run the IRS.

I also wonder about all these rich liberals (Warren Buffet, for instance) who think that they should be taxed more but never bother to simply send the government a check. If rich Dems want to pay more there's nothing stopping them ...

... but they always keep the money.

Spencer Collins · #8 (**permalink**) 02-19-2009, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael1

... no, they send Republicans who don't pay their taxes to jail. When they find Dems who cheat on their taxes they let them run the IRS.

I also wonder about all these rich liberals (Warren Buffet, for instance) who think that they should be taxed more but never bother to simply send the government a check. If rich Dems want to pay more there's nothing stopping them ...

... but they always keep the money.

Except there may be only one honest man among us...Bobby Jindal says he wont accept the money! After hearing Jindal, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin countered and said he would take the money...

Life is stranger than fiction...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/economics/6328-if-you-oppose-stimulus-dont-take-money.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Michelle Malkin The Punish Mark Sanford Amendment; Update: Durbin defends	This thread	Refback	02-18-2009 05:28 AM

The Following User Says Thank You to Michael1 For This Useful Post:
faithful_servant