Palin won't take Federal money, now that's rich.

Texas will take it. We're funded by sales and property taxes, and even during the bubble, our schools were heavily underfunded.

Yeah, we'll take the money. Perry's just posturing because he's looking at a losing primary with Kay Hutchison.

Sanford is considered nuts even by some White Wingers in SC.

I know of one very wealthy, "sensible" Republican who supported the Dem candidate over Sanford in the last election and sent a sizable sum to the Obama campaign.

The more I hear him talk the more I wonder if he isn't flat-out "ill."

h

I dunno. I've just finished reading _The Folklore of Capitalism_ by Thurman Arnold. Written in 1937 but could have been last month. Arnold's point is that these governors' statements were never meant to make sense. They are more like liturgy, or prayers or invocations. They're not policy.

After all, the governors only have to fail to act for 45 days, and the federal government will drag the money to the state; the governor can scream for help to the core constituents the whole time. It'll make great TV.

Why shouldn't they say crap like this? Being the minority party means never having to admit responsibility for policy. The point now is to go on record as saying the stimulus won't work, so that when the nation is still unemployed and homeless in 2010 and 2011 they can say "I told you so" and look like men and women of deep principle. At this point we should only be shocked when a Republican actually acts in a responsible, adult manner regarding government. This stuff is par for the course.

what i like is the way they all keep muttering about "strings" generically, although you would think by now if there were some "strings," they'd have found them....

They should take the money and buy gold with it in order to protect their states' finances for the coming hyper inflation.

So Texas, Mississippi, Louisian, South Carolina, Alaska, and Idaho Governors might reject the money. But if they do, can they be 100% sure that their legislatures will override them? Are any of them governed by equally stupid ideologues?

I'd laugh my ass off if a Republican Governor turned it down and then their state legislature turned it down as well. Ha!

Well... unless I lived there of course.

This performance art by the Republicans is priceless. They need to take it to the town hall forum, McCain style, and tell all those folks down at the town hall, "Washington can keep their money and their jobs, we don't need it!!!"

Sounds like that will be the rogues gallery making up the panel of the first Republican primary bebate sometime in 2011.

Morat20 hit it right on the head. Perry is going into a very tight race for gov in 2010 with Kay Bailey (Sugar Britches) so he has to look like a more "principled" Republican than KB. He'll take the money, kicking and screaming the whole way...(Hurricane Ike victims could use a bit of an economic push Gov Perfect Hair).
It would tickle me to death if he does win the Republican primary only to lose to the Dem (yes, I'm a dreamer!).

perhaps we could do a pre-emptive run and just pass legislation that denies any stimulus to these states?

just sayin.......

Yeah Right!

Steve --

You should look around to see if you can find quotes from these GOP morons in which they tout the benefits of securing some new army base, or Federal research center, etc. I know Kansas just won a bidding war to host some major agricultural/bio-science center, and I believe its competitors were Georgia and a Carolina. The facility is some $300 or $400M and stands to create & locate a bunch of good, high-tech & well-paying jobs in the region.

There have to be similar stories for these states.

Heck, for Palin she went around bragging about that bridge to nowhere for months (when she was running for governor, that is).

These people are really unbelievable.

Some guy from the Heritage Foundation was on an NPR show a few days ago and said that "one good thing" about the whole crisis is that states will at least be forced to spend less money.

Typical, but still amazing, Republican thinking. Totally apart from the question of whether the money is there in the first place, it's always better when governments spend less money. They really hate the whole idea of governments doing good things for people.

So Texas, Mississippi, Louisian, South Carolina, Alaska, and Idaho Governors might reject the money. But if they do, can they be 100% sure that their legislatures will override them?

If there's one group in South Carolina that *really* hates Mark Sanford, it's the state legislature.

I say take em up on it. They don't want the money great let's send it to someplace that does. I'll bet any amount of money Ohio and Michigan will gladly step up to the plate and pick up the slack to receive the funds that all those states don't want. I mean it seriously. Those governors are the elected representatives of the people of those states.

This money is ultimately coming from the taxes that the people in these states pay. What these governors are doing is threatening to refuse to allow their residents' taxes from being used for projects within their states.

It just might possibly maybe perhaps be that those governors are full of shit.

Who could possibily be against the wonderful *freedom* of living in a state that's billions of dollars in debt and unable to provide public services? Only a dirty commie. How totalitarian to have good schools, roads, police protection, etc. It's an intolerable burden and we must get government off our backs immediately!

i don't know about the other states, but if louisiana state government doesn't take the money to do the flood infrastructure work, the federal government should move in and do it because, last i checked, new orleans is an important national port which requires protection.

if these governors think they are making themselves look good, they're in for a rude awakening.

There's a part of me that thinks it would be fun to have Obama say, "Let's use Alaska as a test case, since they've had such a large share of pork lately." Would Palin think of something to talk about the next time she and her Republican state legislators sat around the conference table?

It's not often you can type 'Lindsay Graham, voice of reason,' with a straight face.

This money is ultimately coming from the taxes that the people in these states pay.

Pawlenty was on TV a few times now, complaining that Minn gets less back than they pay in. I'm guessing he thinks other states should be paying for things like the military, NASA, NIH, etc.

The real irony here is that, other than Texas, these states have all received more money back from the government than they have received in taxes for decades.
Link: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html

The current bailout is peanuts compared to the federal money these states have soaked up over the years. A cynic might suspect those governors of political posturing.

the jobs numbers are "according to White House estimates".

meanwhile, here is a report of electricity trends in the right direction:

http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/Coal_And_Nuclear_Electricity_Generation_Declines_As_Renewable_Energy_Sources_Soar_999.html

The stimulus and other recent federal and state laws should accelerate the trends somewhat, though a cellulosic ethanol demonstration plant in Grand Junction, CO is being interrupted.

Personally I think that CO2 sequestration and nuclear are good bets, but the trend in renewables is really to be encouraged. And it is encouraging.

All told, they would be rejecting an estimated $69 billion.

You'd think if these uber-patriots have no qualms about spending the equivalent of 5 months of US taxpayer money in Iraq, they would be okay with spending it in Merca too.

The Govs will come around. But hopefully they will take their sweet time. That way their states' unemployed/foreclosed upon peoples can reflect on their guvnahs actions.

So these lunkheads can turn down the money for their states but the respective legislatures can overrule them and accept it. If the governors do turn it down and are overruled, they can still remain "pure" in the eyes of the base. The problem for them then is dealing with the perception of the people of their states seeing their governor turn down jobs, infrastructure, etc.
When the 35W bridge collapsed in Minnesota, Pawlenty, in the glare of the media immediately after, agreed that a gas tax should be implemented for bridges & roads. When the TV lights were gone, he changed his mind because he has presidential aspirations and being seen levying a tax would offend the gods of no-new-taxes-under-any-circumstances orthodoxy (Pawlenty always campaigned on never raising taxes for any reason).
The Minnesota legislature passed the tax anyway, he vetoed it and they overrode it. Minnesota got a gas tax passed and Pawlenty remained a good boy in the eyes of the far right ideologues.
The goofball six governors have to decide whose wrath they'd rather incur: their constituents or the hard right who must be obeyed.

So your in Iowa or New Hampshire for the Republican primary, and during you stump speech to dozens of enthusiastic supporters you exclaim,
"...and when it came down to it I said thanks but no thanks to stimulus funding to create jobs and rebuild crumbling schools and infrastructure in my state."

And the crowd goes wild, Woohoo! Yeah! Yipee!

I just don't see it.

I hope they do not take the money, that means more for the rest of us... and God knows Arizona needs it. With our legislature domninated by people only slightly to the left of Holy Rollers education and roads and scientific research desperately needs it. Also a large solar or other green energy project would help us along.

Marler wrote: Personally I think that CO2 sequestration and nuclear are good bets

Then let's bury the nuclear waste in your backyard. Deal?

Most extremists of whatever stripe (objectivists, libertarians, Marxists, what-have-you) have t he liberty of holding those far-out positions knowing in some part of their hearts that there isn't the chance of a snowball in hell that they will be actually become reality. So they can have all sorts of fun with the rest of us (I think Rush and the Coulter are like this) while never having to answer for the consequences. Others may appear to be like this but really mean it (e.g. Hitler)...it's hard to know how seriously to take such until it may be too late.

The governors are different yet.They are playing the same game as most everyone, especially the R congressmen...talk loud and pack a small stick. Still, I'm shocked, shocked that there is hypocrisy in politics.

Would that the dittoheads refuse the money indivudally (fat chance!), just like the creationists who deny evolution should go to church, not a doctor, when they get sick.

And I'll leave Michelle Bachmann alone. It's not fair to pick on someone with at best half a brain.

What fools we mortals be!

Most of the states in question (Texas might be an exception) ALREADY get back more in federal spending than they pay in taxes. This is true for most of the red states. Maybe it's time for these states and their republican governors to start surviving on their meager in state tax revenues. If they don't want the money, then let's not force them to do what's best for their constituents. Better to let them do what they think is best for their party and their personal political fortunes. It'd be the right thing to do. after all their congressmen voted against the stimulus package.

If a senator votes no on the stimulus package, let him or her have their way on their state and turn back the money.

The really amazing thing to me is that there are voters who agree with and would reelect these people.

I don't mean this as a defense of our new GOP governor (since Janet went to run Homeland Security) or the GOP controlled legislature - but in Arizona we are cutting higher education to the bone due to our extreme deficit. FY10 is going to see even bigger cuts which will take us below what we funded it at in 2006. As I understand it that means we are not eligible for the education money in this package. The GOP created this idiotic mess, but the fact is our State is in a bit of bind here on accepting some of this money. I don't know the situation in the six States mentioned here, but I think this isn't a simple black and white, "shut up and take the money" situation in some States.

You'd have to be crazy to turn down that kind of money, especially when states are so strapped. (Louisiana faces a $1.6 billion budget shortfall next year.)

What do you mean "strapped"? Some states are just choosing to run their own stimulus programs through deficit spending. Don't Dems understand basic Keynesian economics?

That these six are even exploring the possibility out loud, however, is a reminder of just how far gone some GOP contingents really are, and just what some 2012 hopefulls will stoop to in order to patronize the far-right Republican base.

I don't consider knee-jerking as conscious thought, but my knee-jerk reaction to that is, "Why, hell, yeah! The Democrats would love to run someone against those six doofuses!"

Now I will return control of my consciousness to my brain. . . Down, knee! Down!

knowing in some part of their hearts that there isn't the chance of a snowball in hell that they will be actually become reality.

A snowball in Hell has a better chance than stimulating another asset bubble with ungodly amounts of borrowed public monies does of returning America's economy back to prosperity.

I can't speak for the other states, but my experience with Gov. Goodhair is that he really, really isn't in touch with reality. He is a wholly owned subsidiary of the rich (you should see the list of his donors. You thought the Birchers were right wing?) and depends completely on the right wing religionists for votes. He got somewhere around 36% of the votes last election, but in a four way race, that was enough. Every one of those votes was from some right wing evangelical type who voted the way his pastor told him to. Since he is likely to get his butt handed to him in the next election when Kay Bailey runs in the primaries, Goodhair needs to beef up his bona fides with the famous base.

As for some of that money, he is in the process of selling off the Texas highway system to a consortium led by a Spanish company so he couldn't care less about the highway funds. There is no public transport in Texas to spend money on. And education is such a joke that money is the least of its problems. Have you seen what the State Board of Education is having to deal with lately? Kansas was a cakewalk in comparison.

Goodhair has been following in his predecessor's footsteps in defunding education and trying to privatize the whole system so there is no reason that he would want any of that money. Indeed accepting some of it (highway and education funds) would throw a monkey wrench in his plans.

Sparky, Texas is not an exception. We get a lot more back from the feds than we pay in. We have a lot of military bases. We have a lot of powerful politicians in Washington. We have a lot of government contractors. We have NASA facilities. There is a lot of federal money here.

"...no one seriously wants to play Russian Roulette with their own state's economy..."

Really?? You must not be keeping up with the news. California Republicans have ZERO problem with doing just that.

I have no doubt that other Repub's will do the same.

TALKING about rejecting money, I suspect is NOT "far right".

even moderate conservatives chafe at "handouts" and the sincere ones would give rejection serious thought if they could reject the stimulus for EVERYBODY.

They'll take the money, but they will not like doing it. It's the best part of conservatives; their desire to provide for others, not accept charity. Democrats would do well to adopt the same rhetoric. "We wouldn't do this but tax cuts not only aren't doing the job but we have good reason to believe they CAN'T."

then bring up the important work that will be done with infrastructure and point out this stuff that MUST be done sooner or later will be CHEAPER if done during times of high unemployment.

They'll fall in line.
Pride can get in the way of reason, but the rank-and-file aren't beyond reach despite their leaders' bluster.