GOP Governors Face Fights on Stimulus

[question everything]

MARCH 12, 2009

GOP Governors Face Fights on Stimulus
By SARA MURRAY
WSJ

Republican governors who opposed the economic stimulus package and suggested they would refuse some money are sparking tension within their states -- and, in one case, pitting Republicans against each other. In South Carolina, Gov. Mark Sanford, a high-profile critic of the stimulus package, may become the first governor to reject a significant portion of the stimulus money. Meanwhile, the Mississippi Legislature moved last week to challenge Gov. Haley Barbour's decision to refuse some funds. A bill has also been introduced in the Alabama Legislature to challenge Gov. Bob Riley. And Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana -- another high-profile critic -- will announce Friday whether he will make good on his threats to reject some funds.



Gov. Sanford said Wednesday that he directly controls $700 million of the $3 billion available to South Carolina from the stimulus bill Congress passed last month. He announced he would accept that $700 million only if President Barack Obama gives him a waiver to use it toward state debts and liabilities. If Mr. Obama turns him down, which is considered likely, Gov. Sanford said he would reject the money... Some state legislators, including Republicans, expressed outrage at the governor's decision. That means they might try to apply to Washington for the funds if he ultimately rejects them.

(snip)

In Mississippi, Gov. Barbour -- like other governors -- has pledged to refuse roughly $53 million for unemployment benefits out of the $2.8 billion available to his state, arguing the unemployment funds come with too many strings attached. In response, Mississippi's Democrat-controlled House passed a resolution late last week saying the state would take all available stimulus money. The resolution faces a more uncertain future in the state Senate... The governors object to a requirement in the stimulus law that would force their states to extend unemployment benefits to more low-wage and part-time workers in exchange for some federal funds. They say that could lead to increased state taxes to cover jobless benefits once the stimulus money runs out. In response, Democrats and some Republicans advocate taking the money to deal with unemployment now and sorting out the consequences later. They also argue that if the stimulus works, unemployment will be lower two years from now, reducing state costs.

(snip)

Gov. Jindal of Louisiana is under similar pressure. He has indicated he would accept some of the $3.5 billion to $4 billion available to his state, primarily for programs like Medicaid, education and transportation. But the governor has said he will reject about $98 million to expand unemployment benefits. The rest of the funds are still under the governor's review, with more details expected to come on Friday. While state Republicans have voiced support for him, Democrats control both statehouses and have criticized his stance as political posturing.

Even if state legislatures pass resolutions accepting all the stimulus money and altering jobless eligibility, their governors could still veto the bills. Lawmakers then would have to override the governors to receive the funds. And if the states fail to use the money within a 120-day span, it would be returned to the Treasury.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123681955537903003.html (subscription)

[vaberella]

1. They're fucking their states. Fortunately they'll be out in 2010

but we might have a crisis of toxic States on our hands to deal with in response.

[4lbs]

2. Maybe the people of those states should threaten the Govs with a recall vote.

n/t

[ccharles000]

3. Thank god we here in NC have a Dem Gov.