Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2009 > February > 23
Monday, February 23, 2009
Leave money in Washington? It’s right road to take
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
This could be the moment when the Republicans who run Georgia answer the question: What difference does it make?
What difference does it make whether one party or the other runs Georgia?
What they say and do today in response to the $787 billion spend-a-thon that’s been disguised as “economic stimulus” will tell us a great deal about the horse flesh in the 2010 race for governor and lieutenant governor.
Gov. Sonny Perdue, bless his disciplined soul, took a risk Sunday in declaring that Georgia is prepared to leave stimulus money in Washington. It’s the right thing to do.
Faced with an atrocious spending bill masquerading as something it’s not, every single Republican in the U.S. House of Representative opted for a principled course. They voted no. Same in the U.S. Senate, but for the Mainers Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe and for Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.
In the face of every pressure to push money out the door quickly to save Main Street, Republicans balked. It was a single vote that began the process of reaffirming principle in the drive to reclaim the White House in 2012.
A few Republican governors, including Mark Sanford of South Carolina and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, one or both of whom should be on the GOP ticket in 2012, have begun to balk at taking borrowed money, temporarily given, as incentive to expand social programs.
Jindal, speaking Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” noted that the “stimulus” merely delays the necessity for states to align spending and revenues.
“Why would you turn down $100 million for federal unemployment assistance for your state?” he was asked.
“The $100 million we turned down was temporary federal dollars that would require us to change our unemployment laws,” Jindal replied. “That would’ve actually raised taxes on Louisiana businesses. We as a state would’ve been responsible for paying those benefits after the federal money disappeared.”
Taking the money would have resulted in a permanent obligation, he said. “It would be like spending $1 to get a dime. Why would we take temporary federal dollars if we’re going to end up having a permanent program?”
Jindal’s position should be Georgia’s — for this governor and the next. Perdue, in fact, expressed similar sentiments Sunday. “We’re going to be doing due diligence on each one of these components and deciding what’s in the best long-term interest of Georgians,” he said.
Interest groups are lined up six deep to persuade legislators to take the money and worry about the consequences later. “The Medicaid program has been underfunded for years, and this is a good opportunity to make the system what it should be,” Georgia Hospital Association vice president Kevin Bloye told the AJC’s James Salzer last week. The “stimulus” allocates an immediate $340 million more to Georgia starting Wednesday with a higher reimbursement rate and an invitation to expand caseloads. After two years, the added money goes away.
Georgia’s strategy should be to take the money that is consistent with what state officials intended to do anyway. Spending on roads and bridges, for example, is an easy take. The state has far more in transportation needs than it has money to build. Sure the money’s borrowed — or printed — but the state would be levying the taxes anyway. Take that money.
If the money is programmed to go away, it should stay away.
This is a time that requires real discipline. It requires discipline because turning down money is difficult, something Nancy Pelosi-Democrats knew in larding up the “stimulus” bill with incentives to expand existing programs. Even a stout fiscal conservative like State Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock) has said both that it’s a “bogus loan program” but that “it would be ridiculous not to spend the money if they send it to us.”
Democrats will hammer those who decline “free” money. Republicans running for governor in 2010 will be forced repeatedly to explain why they let money stay in Washington.
And yet, it’s the right thing to do. It’s the principled, politically courageous thing to do. A politician who won’t say no now lacks the backbone to be governor or lieutenant governor.
Permalink | Comments (87) | Post your comment | Categories: Column
President (Bush’s Fault) Obama
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
President Barack Obama, determined not to be thought responsible for anything having to do with the economy, has attracted the two-fer advice of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s husband, Bill, who urges the President to ease-up on the gloom. Be positive, Clinton urged. Not happy-talk, but positive.
It’s true that Obama and his pals can make you want to stuff the butter-and-egg profits in the mattress. Bill Clinton is convinced that it’s all George Bush’s fault for not moving earlier to bail out those who weren’t paying their mortgages. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) sends the value of bank stocks to the toilet with speculation about the need to nationalize several of the larger banks.
Obama’s first speech to Congress as President comes up Tuesday night. It’ll be another occasion to remind the country that nothing’s his fault and that he and the Democrats who brought us the $787 spend-a-thon are the country’s economic saviors. Typical of that stimulus is an $8 billion allocation for high-speed rail. While the “stimulus” didn’t include earmarks, per se, the $8 billion is greater than either the House or Senate recommended.
Among the projects that are thought likely to get funded is an Anaheim, Calif. to Las Vegas line strongly supported by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid or another project to connect Chicago and 11 metro areas within 400 miles of hometown of President Obama, his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and the home state of Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood. In any event, there’s little immediate “stimulus” to come out of it.
On Tuesday night, Obama is expected to remind Americans that he inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit and expects to reduce that in half by the end of his term, largely by reducing expenditures for the war in Iraq and by raising taxes on “the rich” while making government more efficient. Count on the first two.
In Tuesday’s address, he’ll explain how the stimulus works to put the economy back on sound footing.
Here’s the two-part game of the day. What can he say that will help you to believe that this administration and this Congress is doing anything more than advancing yesterday’s agenda? And is your prediction that the stock market rises or sinks on Wednesday?
Man the mattresses.
