Obama Citizenship

?Porkulus Maximus?: Will Governors Object? Chicago Traders Do!

By Phil

According to Bobby Eberle at GOPUSA.com, some Governors — like Mark Sanford of South Carolina (featured on Hannity) — are considering turning down monies to be received via the so-called stimulus bill:

As the Associated Press reports, some Republican governors are considering turning down some money from the federal stimulus package.” The AP paraphrases “opponents” who say the move “puts conservative ideology ahead of the needs of constituents struggling with record foreclosures and soaring unemployment.”

Though none has outright rejected the money available for education, health care and infrastructure, the governors of Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alaska, South Carolina and Idaho have all questioned whether the $787 billion bill signed into law this week will even help the economy.

“My concern is there’s going to be commitments attached to it that are a mile long,” said Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who considered rejecting some of the money but decided Wednesday to accept it. “We need the freedom to pick and choose. And we need the freedom to say ‘No thanks.’”

Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) was quick to denounce the governors, some of whom, according to the AP, “are said to be eyeing White House bids in 2012.”

“No community or constituent should be denied recovery assistance due to their governor’s political ideology or political aspirations,” Clyburn said Wednesday.

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford has been a particularly vocal critic of the bill. In an interview Wednesday evening with Sean Hannity, Gov. Sanford points out the problems governors face in accepting the stimulus funds.

“In many cases, there are a lot of strings attached. To be eligible for some of the unemployment funds, for instance, we would for the first time have to expand unemployment benefits in South Carolina to people who are part time workers.”

The leader of the Democrats in South Carolina, Carol Fowler laments that Sanford is “so ideological,” telling the AP that Sanford “”would rather South Carolina do without jobs than take that money, and I think he’s looking for a way not to take it.”

Sanford and other governors like him are doing the right thing. They were not in a position to fight the battle on Capitol Hill. The battle was lost by Republicans and now the stimulus funds are heading to the states. However, it is incumbent upon these governors to use their powers to turn down funds that come with strings or force the states into matching funds for programs that are simply wrong.

To accept or not accept? That is the question.

And that may have become an even more trickier question considering a certain, probably unconstitutional, provision inserted into the bill (as originally pointed out by blogger Dave Nelle and confirmed by Human Events):

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.

In theory, this would mean that a State legislature could perform an end-run around their Governor and accept federal monies even if their Governor said, “no” (paragraph b being the enabler). That doesn’t sit right with me at all.

But that’s not all. Rick Santelli over at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange has today given the President and his Administration the “what for” regarding mortgages (via CNBC, no less). The Prez is pissin’ off the traders. More links at FreeRepublic.com.

In case you are unaware, all the flak is about some homeowners not being able to pay for their mortgages. The Administration seems to be going down the road that if we simply throw more money at the problem, that will make it go away. Sadly, this couldn’t be further from the truth.

What’s really going on is this: some homeowners are truly in dire straights. They willingly/unwillingly bought more house than they could afford from originators who willingly/unwillingly knew that this kind of scenario would eventually play out. So now we have a nation full of homes that will eventually become bank-owned (worst-case) or be privately owned by the homeowners but at substantially reduced rates/principle (best-case).

How to get out of the mess? Considering the fact that all of this “bad” mortgage debt has now been completely priced into balance sheets everywhere, and since it took America several years to get into this pickle, it’s going to take several years to get out, because all this debt must be accounted for. And the only way to deal with the debt is to get it paid down, and that is going to take a long time to do.

If, instead, this President would have temporarily suspended the payroll tax — thereby allowing one’s entire paycheck to be received (less any State income taxes) — for the equivalent number of months as divided into the “stimulus” bill based on whatever percentage would have been used for tax cuts/credits/etc., then those who were truly in dire straights could have bought several month’s worth of time in getting their mortgage situation corrected and could have instantanously pushed the housing market on its way to better solvency.

The President called his plan a “bold move;” I think the payroll tax idea could have trumped his “bold move.”

-Phil

Full post as published by The Right Side of Life on February 19, 2009 (boomark / email).