When Republicans opposed the stimulus bill, that was fine. They voiced dissent, there was debate, and as a result of the rigorous discussion, more than a hundred billion dollars was trimmed from the final version (largely thanks to the bipartisan support of three Republican Senators). But despite the best efforts of other legislators to stop the bill’s passage, a majority of the people’s elected representatives voted the package through. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Texas Governor Rick Perry, Idaho Governor Butch Otter, and Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour all initially said they were considering not taking the stimulus money. Perry ultimately relented, but so far, both Jindal and Barbour have stuck to their guns, rejecting significant portions of the money passed on to their respective states. Moody’s Economy.com forecasted job losses for 2009. Three of the states listed above- South Carolina, Louisiana, and Mississippi- are projected to experience some of the largest job losses in the country, more than 2.1% across the board. The state budgets are flailing, with four of the six states looking at budget shortfalls in excess of 5% of the respective state’s general fund. The governors are complaining that the stimulus cash is coming with “strings attached.” By “strings,” they mean requirements that portions of the money be spent on pesky little things like education and- ironically enough, considering their rising jobless rates- unemployment benefits. At any other point in time, these governors would be biting and clawing for more money from the federal government that would allow them to improve their schools and build new roads. These are “states’ rights” conservatives who believe that government spending is best done on the local level, that the state governments know a lot better how to spend money in a way that benefits their respective constituents than the federal government in Washington. So why, when money is being put in their hands to be spent on their own states, are they not willing to take it? The simple answer is that all this amounts to political sabotage. After all, if the money never gets into the communities, to the small construction businesses, community credit unions, and school districts, how can the economy ever recover? Rather than use the stimulus cash to provide some much-needed relief to Americans, they’d rather watch the ship go down and hang the blame on the Democratic President (who, let’s remember, has been Commander-in-Chief for just about a month). The whole thing smacks of political opportunism, especially for someone like Jindal, for whom bolstering conservative credentials for the 2012 contest can’t be ruled out as a potential motivator. Fortunately, there are other Republican governors who’ve kept the interests of their constituents in mind enough to realize that their states are drowning in red ink. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger offered to take whatever money Jindal and Barbour turn down, and Florida Governor Charlie Crist reasoned that “Florida sends enough a lot of tax dollars to Washington, and we ought to get some of it back.” The truth is that a handful of Republicans aren’t afraid the stimulus will fail, they’re afraid it will work and that Democrats and President Obama will get credit. It’s ironic that this is coming from a party that spent the last year echoing the phrase of its presidential nominee: “country first.” They hardly seem to be putting it into practice.
Take the legislative process for what it is. You might win some partisan battles, you might lose some others, but in all cases, you work with what you have in front of you.
