Want to Quibble Over Stimulus Money?

By Mark Rley

Republican governors are split over whether and how much of President Barack Obama's stimulus money they should accept. We already told you a number of them can't wait for the dollars to come into their coffers. Now, about a half dozen say they'll reject certain parts of the bill they find objectionable.

Fine. Let them say no, for example, to extending unemployment benefits to workers in their states. When last I checked, Mississippi, whose governor has a problem with that part of the package, doesn't have a full employment economy. Let Haley Barbour explain to his constituents why laid off workers in other states are still getting checks while they aren't.

Much like their counterparts in Congress, these gubernatorial naysayers try to cover their partisan agenda with bogus talk of tax cuts. If they seriously think tax cuts will help their states' economies, why not just eliminate state taxes? They certainly have it in their power to do so.

There's a simple reason why they won't put their own money where their mouths are. They know cutting state taxes would bankrupt them, and wouldn't likely create a single job. It's also interesting to note that several of the governors who want to just say no to the stimulus represent southern states.

Mississippi's unemployment rate stood at 8% at the end of last year. South Carolina, where Gov. Mark Sanford also bleats about extending unemployment benefits to part time workers, had a 9.5% jobless rate, 49th out of the 50 states and DC.

Make no mistake. These governors are the Marie Antoinettes of the 21st century. They profess to stand for conservative principles when much more is needed, and they know it. If I were Barack Obama, I'd throw down an ultimatum. Take the stimulus package as is, or take nothing.

Would these governors then be ready to tell the people to eat cake?