The most Popular Posts of the past seven days.
Feb 26, 2009
Stimulating The Governors
Check out four opinion pieces in the NY Times regarding the increasing number of Republican Governors refusing some of the stimulus package, including Alabama's Bob Riley [though to be honest I'm still not sure he's made a firm decision. Has he said definatively he'll say no?] To varying degrees, the writers think the Governors will, or at least should, take the money. Riley's argument is that taking the money will require the state to raise taxes to pay for an expanded unemployment benefit when the federal dollars end a few years down the road...kind of an "unfunded mandate" argument combined with a "State's Rights" spin. Yet I don't remember objection to "No Child Left Behind" which was also an unfunded mandate. All of the opposing Governors are in Southern or Western States.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In Alabama, "we'se pore but proud!"
ReplyDeleteRiley's is not a philosophically based opposition which is popularly called "unfunded mandate," but is rather a rebellion which runs deep in this state, and of which it is immensely proud.
The fact of the matter is, that in Alabama, we sell our souls for industry, while we often forget that it was induced, and to a varying extent, operated by the low-income people by whose taxes it was subsidized.
Thus, it is to Riley's political advantage to forego increasing unemployment compensation/benefit because it will ultimately be paid for by the workers whose taxes already subsidized and brought industry... which made no legally binding commitment to the state, it's employees or citizens.
Thus, when they close operations for cheap off-shore labor, they're under no obligation to the employees, the state, the feds or anyone but the stockholders and Chief Executives.
I don't recall any Democrats who criticized No Child Left Behind refusing the federal money that went with it to the states, so why the double standard when it comes to Republicans?
ReplyDelete