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?

Best Buds- Obama and Republican Governors?

By Mark Riley

While President Obama takes flack from congressional Republicans on everything from the just passed stimulus bill to the not yet announced home mortgage bailout, Tuesday's New York Times chronicles a curious state of affairs.

Sure, the GOP lawmakers inside the Beltway can keep hollering "tax cut", but an increasing number of Republican governors are in Obama's corner when it comes to trying to jump start the economy.

Governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, Charlie Crist of Florida, and Jodi Rell of Connecticut have come to realize the $135 billion in the stimulus package going directly to states helps them balance their budgets.


Charlie Crist even campaigned with the president in Florida last week to get the package passed.

Their support has everything to do with yawning budget gaps they face in their states. These are gaps the Republicans in Washington pay little attention to. They're too busy grandstanding like Republican leader John Boehner. He dumped the bill to the floor during debate. Fat lot of good it did him.

Also crucial to the support of some Republican governors is the genuine effort on the part of this president to listen to their views. Say what you will about the Republican philosophy of limited government, when the states like California are staring at a budget gap of $41 billion dollars, guess who's the only knight that can ride to the rescue?

Now it's on to the home mortgage mess. Expect Republican governors in states with high foreclosure rates to get behind Obama on this as well.


And again, Republicans in Congress will shout from their bully pulpit, only to find few are listening.

What do you think? Can President Obama convince more Republican governors to back his economic recovery plans?

Why the Fighting Over Stimulus?

By Mark Riley

The Senate may well take up President Obama's stimulus package before this day is out. One hesitates to put a price tag on it, because it changes depending on what media you consume. Anyway, a number of senators seem top be bent on trimming what they consider to be unnecessary spending from the bill.


That may be all well and good. It's also interesting that the effort to cut the money is bipartisan. And certainly no one wants to waste money, right? More on that later. Senators Ben Nelson and Susan Collins, both centrists, say they'd like to trim $50 to $200 billion dollars from the package.

So where do they want to cut? $50 million for the arts, $14 million from a Homeland Security initiative, $1 billion from the National Science Foundation, $400 million from research into sexually transmitted diseases, $850 million destined for Amtrak, and $400 million for climate change research.

Fantastic! Trouble is, unless my math is really bad, those proposed cuts don't come anywhere near the $50 to $200 billion these folks want to see trimmed. That would mean more delay and haggling, when delay is the worst thing that could happen to the American people.

New claims for unemployment benefits are at the highest rate since 1982.


The January employment report is due tomorrow, and no one is expecting good news. All due respect to Senators Collins and Nelson (and their allies in this cutting fever), if they can't come up with more than the approximately $2.8 billion they've suggested, they need to move out of the way.

Maybe they're trying to prevent what happened with the financial bailout from happening here. The chair of the group overseeing that money says Uncle Sam overpaid for stocks and other assets to the tune of $80 billion dollars.

Yet isn't President Obama's package an investment in the American people? How about getting it done this week?

Ready to Spend Yet?

By Mark Riley

It may not be law yet, but the media has already begun analyzing how the House passed economic stimulus bill will affect Americans. The press has also made a big deal out of the fact that despite President Obama's best efforts, no Republicans voted for the plan in the House.

On the first issue, the answer is simple. The purpose of this plan is to convince the public that it's okay to spend again. Keep in mind that as this crisis has deepened, most folks have seriously cut back on buying, even during the Christmas season.

The alternative for many has been to pay down on debt, not necessarily a bad thing. The question now is whether the combination of tax cuts ($211 of the $819 billion dollar package) and new spending will loosen American purse-strings. Maybe, maybe not.

One good thing. The plan would spend serious money on roads, bridges, and other infrastructure. Let's hope major cities get some real money for mass transit improvements. Health care would also get a good chunk of money, some $88 billion to shore up Medicaid alone.

President Obama wants to get this thing passed and signed before President's Day. He's invested serious time and effort in trying to marshall bipartisan support in both houses of Congress. It didn't work in the House. Republicans wanted nothing but a tax cut plan, and bickered during debate about whether GW Bush's cuts in '01 created years of growth.

It makes one wonder if trying to talk sense to these people really makes any. Why is there a part of me that wants the president to crack with whip with both congressional Republicans and clueless bankers? The former don't seem to want to admit how bad things really are.

If they want to talk about the good old days of our former president, let them. Let Barack Obama drive the bus with these people standing on the sidelines, griping. If this plan puts people back to work and gets them to spend again, they'll be exposed for the fools they are.

President Obama is doing exactly what he said he'd do during the campaign. Shouldn't these partisan do nothings be called out for who they are?

You tell me. Leave a comment and start a discussion...