Posted on 02/24/2009 10:52:59 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Chuck Schumer is demanding that the States in the union should NOT have the power to make decisions on the what and where the money given to them is spent from the Generational Theft Act:
In recent days, a small minority of governors, mostly Republicans, have publicly weighed the possibility of foregoing certain emergency provisions provided under the American Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Act signed last week by President Obama. I believe this prospect not only would undercut the stimulative effect of the recovery package, but also is inconsistent with a key provision included in the law passed by Congress. To protect the integrity of the recovery program, 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.
Note: letter isn’t up on Schumers website yet, you can google the above and be taken to the looney left sites that have it up….will not link to them.
He cries that some states are rejecting the additional tax on small businesses by refusing to expand unemployment insurance for laid off workers. The tax is an undue burden on the segment of our society that is the backbone of capitilism. The small business owner.
(Excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net ...
There a lot of people out there that want the Wall Street bankers hung in the public square and a big share of the spoils...
“no Governor should have the authority to arbitrarily adopt a select subset of the overall package”
Loophole: decision will not be arbitrary but based on logic.
See #17.
This government is supposed to be OF THE PEOPLE, not TO the people.
The state rubs the lotion on its skin, then it places the lotion in the basket.
“2010 is going to be 1994 all over again for the Democrats in Congress...just as I fervently hope 2012 will be 1980 for Barack Obama. “
I have been praying to God every day since Nov 4 that is will indeed happen. I predicted the socialists would over-reach, but never did I imagine they’d go so far so soon.
Schumer To White House: Governors Can't Turn Down Part Of Stimulus
**************************EXCERPT************************
By Eric Kleefeld - February 24, 2009, 11:23AM
Chuck Schumer is calling for a crack-down on Republican governors who want to turn down part, but not all, of their state's stimulus funds -- for example, Bobby Jindal and Haley Barbour refusing increased unemployment benefits -- releasing a new letter to the White House arguing that the law doesn't allow this, and asking the Obama Administration to tell governors that it's all-or-nothing:
As you know, Section 1607(a) of the economic recovery legislation provides that the Governor of each state must certify a request for stimulus funds before any money can flow. No language in this provision, however, permits the governor to selectively adopt some components of the bill while rejecting others. 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. It would also undermine the overall success of the bill, as the components most singled out for criticism by these governors are among the most productive measures in terms of stimulating the economy.
Schumer also takes a shot at the governors who are turning down parts of the package, accusing them of having political motives:
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. 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.
It should be noted that it would be politically untenable for a governor to turn down all of their state's haul. So if the White House were to adopt Schumer's interpretation, they would really be making these governors an offer they can't refuse.
Well, we’re fighting the states rights issues, so that’s to be expected. It’s a battle that has been going on since Lincoln dealt states rights a blow in the Civil War...
The state rubs the lotion on its skin, then it places the lotion in the basket.
LOL! DIBS!
If I give you credit, can I use it as a tag line?
It’s all yours!
Jindal to refuse some stimulus money
***********************EXCERPT*********************
By ALEXANDER BURNS | 2/20/09 5:10 PM ES
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal announced Friday that he will decline stimulus money specifically targeted at expanding state unemployment insurance coverage, becoming the first state executive to officially refuse any part of the federal government’s payout to states.
In a statement, Jindal, who is slated to give the Republican response to President Barack Obama’s message to Congress on Tuesday, expressed concern that expanding unemployment insurance coverage would lead to increased unemployment insurance taxes later on.
“The federal money in this bill will run out in less than three years for this benefit and our businesses would then be stuck paying the bill,” Jindal said. “We must be careful and thoughtful as we examine all the strings attached to the funding in this package. We cannot grow government in an unsustainable way.”
Jindal is one of a small group of Republican governors, which includes South Carolina’s Mark Sanford and Mississippi’s Haley Barbour, who have said they might refuse some or all of the stimulus money targeted to their states.
In an interview Friday, Barbour said he, too, would likely decline funds for broadening access to unemployment insurance.
“Subject to learning more, my position is that Mississippi won’t accept funds that require us to have a tax increase later, because [they would force] us to change our rules for qualifying for unemployment compensation,” he said.
It is not clear which, if any, other parts of the stimulus funding Republican governors will decline. But initial suggestions that anti-stimulus governors might decline all the funds targeted for their states have faded.
Ultra, will you give the Alabamaians a ping here.
TL, I just spoke with someone at a business today. They expanded in 2006 because they were going great guns. Today, business is dry.
I ask you and ALL of you, WHAT HAPPENED IN 2006???
That’s right, the dems took control of Congress. The economy was going great up until that point. Their sorry backsides can blame this on GW all they want, but we need to point out that he WAS REELECTED in 2004. It is true that he was a fiscal liberal, but it has been Pelosi and Reid who have destroyed this economy. SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS!!!!
And you don’t replace a fiscal liberal prez with a marxist and expect things to improve!
/rant over...sigh
Alabama ping; state’s rights interests ahoy!
On a good day it’s hard to beat Chuckie for sheer buffoonery. I think the basic idea is that we’re supposed to act grateful when the mugger offers to give us some of our own money back.
Thanks dead!
I’ve been looking for a good tag.
You’re awesome!
Which one of the following is likely to occur first:
(A) Revolution
(B) Secession
(C) Military Coup
(D) Tax Revolt
D then B then A.
Througout history, one has not occurred without the others. In conclusion, the answer would be, all of the above.
Duh, I should have read the post. You asked which one first, not which one.
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.