To be fair, the governors have a divided duty, to their country and to the state that they govern.
The Porculus Bill is a travesty, that will enrich Obama’s pals and move the country left without doing one damned thing to fix the economy.
So, best if it is shot down. But the governors don’t get to vote on it; the senators do. If this lousy bill gets past, what governor in his right mind would want to see the taxpayers in his state pay the tab, through taxes or hyperinflation, yet refuse to take a share of the proceeds?
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.
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.
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.