Posted on 01/31/2009 9:02:30 AM PST by EagleUSA
NEW YORK – Most Republican governors have broken with their GOP colleagues in Congress and are pushing for passage of President Barack Obama's economic aid plan that would send billions to states for education, public works and health care.
Their state treasuries drained by the financial crisis, governors would welcome the money from Capitol Hill, where GOP lawmakers are more skeptical of Obama's spending priorities.
The 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, scheduled meetings in Washington this weekend with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and other senators to press for her state's share of the package.
Florida Gov. Charlie Crist worked the phones last week with members of his state's congressional delegation, including House Republicans. Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, the Republican vice chairman of the National Governors Association, planned to be in Washington on Monday to urge the Senate to approve the plan.
"As the executive of a state experiencing budget challenges, Gov. Douglas has a different perspective on the situation than congressional Republicans," said Douglas' deputy chief of staff, Dennise Casey.
Not a single Republican voted with the majority last week when the House approved Obama's $819 billion combination of tax cuts and new spending. The president's goal is to create or preserve 3 million to 4 million jobs.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Sarah Palin needs to be there, consulting with her fellow governors. That doesn’t mean that she approves the bailout plan, only that it’s not her job to screw Alaska. Of course the MSM misrepresents the whole business.
:::::::::::::::
I would agree. It is really just recirculation of their own tax dollars anyway -— Alaska pays its part, as all other states do. If you can get some of the highway robbery back, so be it.
LLS
Easily we're looking at 20-25% reduction in revenue in 2009 compared to 2007...with probably another 10-20% in 2010.
The modern welfare state has never before been presented with such a problem..."needs" increasing while revenue decreases. And, the states cannot print money. They have to borrow from the private sector, tax the private sector or get free Federal money.
NOBODY is loaning to the states as they watch their income fall and their obligations and debts increase. Who wants to buy California State Bonds at ANY interest rate?
Which brings me to my point: There are only two potential outcomes, over the next 2-7 years, for this financial conflagration.
Either full "socialization" of the means of production and finance, inclusive of the repudiation of all debt, public and private.
Or, the government honey train gets shut down and millons lose their welfare benefits.
In other words, the great financial conflagration of 2008-2009 will result in the great social conflagration of 2010 and beyond. The pie is much smaller and it's not going to get much bigger any time soon. Those who have will do what they can to preserve it. Those who have-not will do what they can to steal it from those who have it.
Enormous turmoil awaits us. This same scenario will be played out within every nation and between nations.
Babylon is burning and the merchants watch and weep.
Absolutely. Also, governors have no place to hide. It's one thing to be one of 435 reps or one of 100 senators; it's quite another to be the one governor of a state.
Of course, I suppose a free market Republican governor with a solidly Republican state legislature could say: Okay, guys, let's put this to a vote. Do we or do we not accept money from the stimulus package. That would spread the responsibility around.
The reality is that the closer to home an elected official resides, the less economically ideological they are. Politicians are much more pragmatic about budgets when voters call up complaining about unfilled potholes and brazen vermin.
The way the ASS. PRESS twists the truth, I doubt the true conservative governors are pushing for such nonsense.
I don't believe this. AK is running a surplus.
I think you’re probably right. As a governor, she has different priorities than a member of Congress.
http://www.adn.com/news/government/legislature/story/674073.html
Nasty lil’ ho’s who refuse to act responsible.
Very true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.