Schumer to GOP Govs: Take It All or Leave It All

[Lunar]

Not that Schumer means anything now that the bill has already passed, but...

I disagree with his position by the way.  I don't see why states should have to spend more than they want (although this isn't just up to the governor). 

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/02/24/schumer-urges-‘take-it-or-leave-it’-on-stimulus-accuses-gop-govs-of-playing-politics/

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) sent a letter to the White House Tuesday urging the administration to not allow GOP governors to reject certain parts of the $787 economic stimulus package.

The letter to Peter Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, obtained by The Hill, said that governors should not be able to pick and choose funding from the stimulus because that would “undermine the overall stimulative impact of the package.”

“I urge the administration to issue implementation guidance clarifying that while any governor may exercise his or her discretion to accept or reject the federal funds provided in the stimulus, no Governor should have the authority to arbitrarily adopt a select subset of the overall package,” Schumer wrote.

Schumer’s letter comes as Lousiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) have said they plan to reject part of the funding from the stimulus. Jindal, who will deliver the GOP response to President Obama’s address to Congress Tuesday night, has been particularly vocal in his opposition.

Schumer also wrote that if governors are allowed to select what funding they accept from the bill, they will be given authority that the president did not have. “To allow such picking and choosing would, in effect, empower the governors with a line-item veto authority that President Obama himself did not possess at the time he signed the legislation,” Schumer wrote.

The New York senator also commented on the letter Tuesday morning on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” "This was never intended by congress to be an a-la-carte menu," he said. “ Schumer said. "It's a complete package — they ought to take it or leave it."

In the end, Schumer accused the governors of playing politics with the funding.

“No one would dispute that these governors should be given the choice as to whether to accept the funds or not. But it should not be multiple choice,” he wrote. “The composition of the package was rightly dictated by economic considerations; we should not let the implementation of the package be dictated by political considerations.”

[MasterJedi]

In the end, Schumer accused the governors of playing politics with the funding.

Lol

[Lunar]

Haha.  I don't see why Schumer wants to force money on governors of non-swing states who don't want some of the money.  Just distribute it to the more needy states like the original plan had prescribed (the Senate version had a stronger ratio of all states:neediest states than the House version) or don't spend it and let the deficit increase less.   

[paul718]

Without a specific provision in the legislation, I don't think the governors should be allowed to pick and choose.  While I generally oppose the bill myself, I think picking and choosing could set a dangerous precedent. 

[Lunar]

Is there a provision for a governor to reject all of the money in the first place?  I mean, if there's no provision for rejecting only the unemployment benefits (what I think Jindal is doing, an odd decision since unemployment is skyrocketing beyond most states' budgets), there's no provision for rejecting anything else, eh?

I mean, no governor of a truly needy state would reject the money, so I don't see why the feds shouldn't divert the money to more needy states instead of forcing the money upon a government that doesn't want it.

I would have voted No on the stimpack for the record for infrastructure reasons.

[paul718]

Is there a provision for a governor to reject all of the money in the first place?  I mean, if there's no provision for rejecting only the unemployment benefits (what I think Jindal is doing, an odd decision since unemployment is skyrocketing beyond most states' budgets), there's no provision for rejecting anything else, eh?

You're right.  Maybe Schumer is wrong for another reason -- that the states wouldn't be allowed to reject all of the money in toto.   I mean, it's federal legislation.  Can you simply reject federal legislation, regardless of how justified you might be in doing so?   

Maybe this will end up in the Supreme Court?

[Mr. Morden]

I thought the issue was that the money comes with strings.....that if you take the $, it means that the state has to start paying out unemployment benefits to part time workers in addition to the full time workers that they already cover, and Barbour, Jindal, and Sanford don't want to do that.......or something like that.  Maybe someone else here knows all the details?

[ChrisFromNJ]

Chuck Schumer is the man. At least one Democratic Senator had the balls to say this. I just miss Democrats had the message machinery that the Repugs do.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The 2012 Republican hopefuls like Sanford, Pawlenty, Jindal, and Palin want to score cheap political points by rejecting some token part of the stimulus, while avoiding the outrage that would occur if they completely screwed their state out of its allocation of the stimulus. Some of their states probably aren't that needy here anyways, but South Carolina does have high unemployment.

[Sam Spade]

Now, Bredesen is threatening to do the same (FF, naturally)...

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090225/NEWS02/902250416

[ChrisFromNJ]

Now, Bredesen is threatening to do the same (FF, naturally)...

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090225/NEWS02/902250416

Bredesen is a Republican (DINO) anyways.

A HP.

[Bono]

Haha.  I don't see why Schumer wants to force money on governors of non-swing states who don't want some of the money.  Just distribute it to the more needy states like the original plan had prescribed (the Senate version had a stronger ratio of all states:neediest states than the House version) or don't spend it and let the deficit increase less.   

Winter's gone
The Spring is here
For this we thank
Our party dear

[Lunar]

Now, Bredesen is threatening to do the same (FF, naturally)...

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090225/NEWS02/902250416

Interesting.  I bet he doesn't do it though. 

[Padfoot]

Without a specific provision in the legislation, I don't think the governors should be allowed to pick and choose.  While I generally oppose the bill myself, I think picking and choosing could set a dangerous precedent. 

I agree.  Governors do not have the power to "reject" federal legislation simply because they don't like it.  Allowing this to happen sets a very dangerous precedent.

[Lunar]

Without a specific provision in the legislation, I don't think the governors should be allowed to pick and choose.  While I generally oppose the bill myself, I think picking and choosing could set a dangerous precedent. 

I agree.  Governors do not have the power to "reject" federal legislation simply because they don't like it.  Allowing this to happen sets a very dangerous precedent.

They're given money to spend on very specific projects.  Why shouldn't they be allowed to choose not to spend it?  If the federal government want to transcend the governors' authority, then they could have created their own system of distributing this set of funds. 

Why should we spend money for areas where the governor doesn't want it?  Like I said, the system already has an awkward distribution mechanism that prioritizes all states over the neediest states, let's just give the money to places that want the cash or not rack up our deficit. 

I don't see the dangerous precedent.  less government spending?  political maneuvering at the cost of effective government?

[paul718]

Without a specific provision in the legislation, I don't think the governors should be allowed to pick and choose.  While I generally oppose the bill myself, I think picking and choosing could set a dangerous precedent. 

I agree.  Governors do not have the power to "reject" federal legislation simply because they don't like it.  Allowing this to happen sets a very dangerous precedent.

They're given money to spend on very specific projects.  Why shouldn't they be allowed to choose not to spend it?  If the federal government want to transcend the governors' authority, then they could have created their own system of distributing this set of funds. 

Why should we spend money for areas where the governor doesn't want it?  Like I said, the system already has an awkward distribution mechanism that prioritizes all states over the neediest states, let's just give the money to places that want the cash or not rack up our deficit. 

I don't see the dangerous precedent.  less government spending?  political maneuvering at the cost of effective government?

Well it isn't dangerous in this specific case.  But my concern is with the governors possibly "breaking the law".  I agree that the result would be preferential (less waste, more money where it's needed), but it could be used to set up state-federal power struggles in the future.  Again, I'm not sure that would be horrible either.  I highly doubt the judiciary would view the current situation as having any precedential authority for anything. 

What are the alternatives?  Can a state government "gift" the money back to the federal government?  Do use the money for aid to other states?  Cut checks to the state residents?  Ultimately, I think this could be avoided with better drafted legislation. 

I really shouldn't comment on this because I don't know how such distribution operates. 

[Lunar]

It'd be an interesting law that provided states the ability to donate federal money they feel they don't need to charity.  I'm sure there would be all kinds of complications.

I don't think the federal government minus the Supreme Court has the ability to force states to do anything they don't want to do with their budgets.  But I'm not a legal specialist.  I don't think taking the money to write a check to state residents would be a good options since I think governors would be tempted to do that with everything.