Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jindal rejects La.'s stimulus share

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jindal rejects La.'s stimulus share

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...timulus-share/

    Saturday, February 21, 2009
    Jindal rejects La.'s stimulus share
    Stephen Dinan and S.A. Miller THE WASHINGTON TIMES

    Louisiana's Bobby Jindal, a Republican, became the first governor Friday to refuse officially a part of his state's share of the $787 billion stimulus bill, while President Obama warned the nation´s mayors to spend stimulus money wisely.

    While some governors were subtly backing off previous statements that they wouldn't take their share of the windfall, Mr. Jindal issued a statement saying Louisiana would not participate in a program aimed at expanding state unemployment insurance coverage.

    "Increasing taxes on our Louisiana businesses is certainly not a way to stimulate our economy. It would be the exact wrong thing we could do to encourage further growth and job creation," said Mr. Jindal, although the Louisiana legislature could override his decision.

    He said accepting the money would have required a change in state law and, after federal money runs out in three years, would have led to a $12 million increase in taxes on his state's businesses to keep funding the benefit. He also warned other states against the program.


    "I strongly suggest that other states also look closely at this provision in the bill so they can also avoid ultimately passing on a significant tax to businesses that will be left paying for this expansion of benefits when the federal money dries up," he said.

    For his part, Mr. Obama told the mayors who gathered in the White House´s East Room that the adminstration will be on the prowl to stop wasteful spending.

    "The American people are watching. They need this plan to work. They expect to see the money they've earned, they've worked so hard to earn, spent in its intended purposes," he said.

    The spending bill includes tens of billions of dollars in aid to states to help them keep government workers on their payrolls, and includes separate lines of money to build road and other infrastructure projects throughout the country.

    But besides Mr. Jindal, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin have said federal money may be coming with too many strings attached and may leave the states on the hook to fund the positions and projects when the stimulus money is gone. All three governors are being widely considered as possible 2012 presidential candidates.

    "We may reject or accept some or all of the money. We just don't know at this point," said Joel Sawyer, communications director for Mr. Sanford. "We're going line by line to see what's in there and what isn't and what strings are attached."

    He conceded it would politically perilous for Mr. Sanford to decline the aid. "It probably will not go over too well if the governor decides to reject some of the money," Mr. Sawyer said.

    On Thursday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry became the first to acquiesce completely, as he accepted Texas' $17 billion share of the funds.

    "I believe there are better ways to reinvigorate our economy and believe [the stimulus] will burden future generations with unprecedented levels of debt," Mr. Perry wrote in a letter Thursday formally accepting Texas' share of the funds.

    He previously threatened to "look a gift horse in the mouth" with respect to Mr. Obama's economic rescue.

    Mr. Jindal's resistance to the stimulus prompted blistering attacks from Louisiana Democrats.

    "He seems to be trying to play both sides of the fence. He might refuse some of the money, he might take some of the money," said Louisiana Democratic Party spokesman Scott Jordan.

    "We've got almost $2 billion, education, health care, coastal restoration," he said. "The notion that Governor Jindal would turn down money that would help in those areas ... is just crazy."

    Congressional Democrats, anticipating that some Republican governors might reject the money, wrote a clause into the bill allowing the money to be disbursed over the objection of governors if the state legislatures pass resolutions accepting the money.

    House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, South Carolina Democrat, wrote the clause into the bill to circumvent early threats by Mr. Sanford, a provision that won him praise for his foresight from the mayors who met with Mr. Obama at the White House.

    New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin said after the meeting that Mr. Jindal's tough talk, though he hadn't at the time officially said "no," was probably about his political ambitions.

    "The governor of the state of Louisiana is a Republican. I think he's been tapped as the up-and-coming Republican to potentially run for president the next time it goes around. So he has a certain vernacular and a certain way he needs to talk right now," Mr. Nagin said.

    Still, Mr. Nagin said he expects the state to use the legislative work-around provision.

    "I told the governor personally, any dollars he does not want, we will take them gladly," he said.

    Mrs. Palin already has pushed the decision onto the state Legislature while still warning of "strings" attached to the federal handout.

    "The governor has said that she would be wary of federal money that would create ongoing appropriations obligations that would fall to the state once the stimulus injection is gone," said Bill McAllister, spokesman for the one-time vice presidential candidate.

    Mr. Obama has spent the days since he signed the bill urging those who will spend the money to be vigilant.

    His administration has created recovery.gov, which he says will allow taxpayers to track all of the bill's spending and to submit comments if they see wasteful items.

    Mr. Obama said he will call out any federal agency that he thinks is wasting money and will do the same to state and local officials. On Thursday, Mr. Obama created a White House Office of Urban Affairs to help him coordinate policy toward cities.

    As the meeting with the mayors began Friday, those present gave Mr. Obama an extended round of applause, and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. could be heard over the microphone saying, "They haven't been here in a while.

    "Welcome back to the White House," he told them when the applause died down.

    It's the second time Mr. Biden has pointedly implied that groups were kept out of the White House under President Bush. Mr. Biden made the same "welcome back" remark to union leaders in a similar East Room ceremony in the administration's earliest days.
    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

  • #2
    i figure that's only the right thing to do. if republicans or democrats believe that the bill is wasteful spending, then they shouldn't be at the trough, either.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

    Comment


    • #3
      I posted about my admiration of Jindal way back here. I still feel that way, only much, much moreso.

      Comment


      • #4
        He's just playing with people's lives for the benefit of partisan politics. The stimulus has already been passed, so he might as well use it. His state is going to have to pay taxes on it later if I remember correctly, so there is absolutely NO reason to turn down the funding.

        Edit: Is it just state unemployment insurance, or is he turning down a significant share of the total funding? I don't think the article makes it very clear.
        Last edited by Masada; 22 Feb 09,, 17:46.
        USS Toledo, SSN 769

        Comment


        • #5
          Dunno about Gov. Jindal himself but personally I think it's probably a good idea that a state like LA doesn't get a gigantic infusion of cash and contracts like that.

          Obama's vow to watchdog the spending not withstanding, LA is so impossibly corrupt that a couple billion dollars would vanish into thin air within minutes of it's arrival.

          Beyond all that, I think it's probably a good idea for Gov. Jindal to reject the money in the short-term if he sees a fiscal train wreck in the future.
          “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Masada View Post
            He's just playing with people's lives for the benefit of partisan politics. The stimulus has already been passed, so he might as well use it. His state is going to have to pay taxes on it later if I remember correctly, so there is absolutely NO reason to turn down the funding.

            Edit: Is it just state unemployment insurance, or is he turning down a significant share of the total funding? I don't think the article makes it very clear.
            The money comes with strings attached - acceptance of federal funds means the modification of the program, and funding three years out comes wholly from the state. Essentially, federal policy is making state policy.
            "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

            Comment


            • #7
              Precisely so; EVERY time and in EVERY circumstance there are strings attached to government money. And those of us that believe that government is a necessary evil, useless but for those clearly-delineated authorities, it IS more oftn than not part of the problem.

              Jindal sees this, and he is not going to make a Faustian bargain with the Federal Devil. And good for him. THAT is as clear an example of conservative principle winning out over grubby political consideration as we've been privileged to witness for many a day.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Masada View Post
                He's just playing with people's lives for the benefit of partisan politics.
                What he's playing with is the ability of a massively-corrupt political machine in Louisiana, and he knows that what Tophatter asserts is true: this much largesse being dumped into this black hole will only enrich the people that are adept at stealing from the public treasury. He's right to assume that most of this money will enrich the wrong people, and will NOT help 'people's lives'.

                The stimulus has already been passed, so he might as well use it. His state is going to have to pay taxes on it later if I remember correctly, so there is absolutely NO reason to turn down the funding.
                Of course there's reasons to turn it down, and look what you just wrote. Does it make ANY sense to YOU that Washington sends money to Baton Rouge, and then demands that Baton Rouge send money BACK? Jindal has a better idea: we'll take care of our own, and you can take your well-meaning advice and your not-so-well-meant stipulations on how we are supposed to do things with 'your' money back to DC with you. And I bet they will do just fine, even without the back-and-forthing of billions of dollars.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I think it's obvious that the short-term effects of the stimulus are pretty much nil.

                  It's unpopular with most Americans, it had zero effect on the various markets (unless you want to count a nosedive as an effect) and people who can both read and are fiscally responsible (apparently Democrats are neither) are looking at the fine print and saying "Oh hell no!"

                  So, now it's off to the races with Obama's mortgage rescue plan. I have better feelings about this one but personally I'd love to set fire to every bank in the United States.

                  Get this: My roommates bought the house we're living in about 2 years ago. The bank sold it to them at $300,000.

                  Now, two years later, they're trying to refinance because the bank is jacking up their monthly payment by $600. (gee I wonder why)

                  So the appraisers come out again and this time they regretfully inform us that the rules have changed about appraisals and now the house is work just over $100,000 and now the bank won't refinance, at least not until Obama's plan assures them that they won't lose money on the deal.

                  My friends, can there be any doubt who is to blame for the mortgage crisis that probably caused this recession balloon to go up in the first place?
                  “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                    I think it's obvious that the short-term effects of the stimulus are pretty much nil.

                    It's unpopular with most Americans, it had zero effect on the various markets (unless you want to count a nosedive as an effect) and people who can both read and are fiscally responsible (apparently Democrats are neither) are looking at the fine print and saying "Oh hell no!"

                    So, now it's off to the races with Obama's mortgage rescue plan. I have better feelings about this one but personally I'd love to set fire to every bank in the United States.

                    Get this: My roommates bought the house we're living in about 2 years ago. The bank sold it to them at $300,000.

                    Now, two years later, they're trying to refinance because the bank is jacking up their monthly payment by $600. (gee I wonder why)

                    So the appraisers come out again and this time they regretfully inform us that the rules have changed about appraisals and now the house is work just over $100,000 and now the bank won't refinance, at least not until Obama's plan assures them that they won't lose money on the deal.

                    My friends, can there be any doubt who is to blame for the mortgage crisis that probably caused this recession balloon to go up in the first place?
                    Consumers have an unreasonable expectation that the value of their house will always go up. It is likely to go up, but there is no guarantee. A house is only as good as its ability to be resold on the open market. Even in a location like Ft. Myer, FL "prime" real estate may not be so prime, if no one is around to buy the house.

                    Your roommates' monthly payments are going up because they have an ARM. They decided to get that instead of a fixed rate, either because they couldn't afford a fixed rate at the time. or they were lured by the low (initially) monthly payments of the ARM. They didn't think through the consequences of their mortgage; only assuming that once they got a house the value would go up and they could refinance later. Their assumption was wrong, they can't afford the higher payments, and now they are stuck.

                    Hopefully that is an accurate portrayal of your roommates' situation, without knowing any details. :) Sorry if it's not, but there are plenty of other similar cases. I used to be a mortgage broker, and I saw those situations play out time and again. People insist on being in a house, and there were certainly subprime lenders to accommodate their wishes. If one cannot afford a house though one would reason that one shouldn't buy a house.

                    Someone with a 600, 620 FICO score, and 50% DTI ratios has no business being in a house, but they would get a house, financed at 12, 14%, due to lending rules. No surprise that they defaulted, no surprise we are in this mess.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Herodotus View Post
                      Hopefully that is an accurate portrayal of your roommates' situation, without knowing any details. :) Sorry if it's not, but there are plenty of other similar cases. I used to be a mortgage broker, and I saw those situations play out time and again.
                      No idea if you're accurate or not. Having said that, I also have no reason to doubt you as you are the proverbial Pro From Dover on the particular subject matter. (if you want to talk about the visual detection of counterfeit microchips on the other hand....)

                      In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that you're probably more right than I'm aware of. All I do is pay my monthly rent, hold dominion over 1/3 of the house and I'm as happy as a pig in slop. I'm extremely grateful that I didn't try to overextend myself and get a house otherwise I'd probably be in the same boat.

                      It's just infuriating that a bank would be so 'generous' as to offer a house at a certain price and then just two years later appraise that same house at such a steep loss, so sorry Mr. and Mrs. Abouttobeforeclosedon.

                      And that's another thing: These sh`t-for-brains banks are foreclosing on houses - rather than trying to work with willing clients - and then having the house sit empty and rot/get vandalized until it's a worthless pile of trash that needs to be thoroughly gutted and refurbished. Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

                      In fact, I've watching that exact little comedy play out across the street for the past several weeks. Hmph, at least it's putting a bunch of tradesmen to work for awhile.
                      “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Bluesman View Post

                        Of course there's reasons to turn it down, and look what you just wrote. Does it make ANY sense to YOU that Washington sends money to Baton Rouge, and then demands that Baton Rouge send money BACK? .
                        The federal government disbursed $2.45 trillion in domestic spending in 2006, according to two reports published by the U.S. Census Bureau. That represented an 7.5 percent increase in federal spending over 2005.

                        The first of the new reports, Consolidated Federal Funds Report: 2006, provides a broad overview of how and where the federal government allocates funds. Statistics are provided for each federal department and agency, and presented by state, county and subcounty area.

                        The second report, Federal Aid to States for Fiscal Year 2006, contains data on federal grants to state and local governments.

                        Defense spending totaled $400 billion in 2006. This amount includes procurement contracts, payroll, military pensions and grants. Department of Homeland Security spending totaled $57 billion.

                        Per capita spending among states was highest for Louisiana ($16,263). Mississippi was second ($14,516), followed by Alaska ($13,805). The states that received the lowest per capita distribution of federal funds were Nevada ($5,852), Utah ($6,162) and Minnesota ($6,175).

                        California received 10.3 percent of the total distribution of federal expenditures while Texas received 6.8 percent, followed by New York at 6.2 percent.
                        http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/...ts/011813.html
                        I won't hold my breath waiting to read about the check he will be sending to return our tax dollars since LA doesn't need them. It's funny he references a reason the expenditure can't be sunset but no one else can find it. I am not saying it isnt there but why cant it be produced?
                        What a bunch of BS. He is climbing ahead on the backs of hurting people. I especially liked how he talked about how LA pays more in gas taxes than it gets back. WTF s he smoking it's the state that gets the MOST from the federal government. At least Charlie Crist is looking out for his citizens not his career. He was so full of crap I had to turn the TV off. Let me know when he turns down funds for construction contracts and to pay state bills. That's when we will see how full of crap he is. Isn't it ironic the other Governors saying they may not take the money are from states sucking the hardest on the federal tit? God, I hope they turn it all down in pursuit of the nomination in 2012.
                        Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”
                        ~Ronald Reagan

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
                          What he's playing with is the ability of a massively-corrupt political machine in Louisiana, and he knows that what Tophatter asserts is true: this much largesse being dumped into this black hole will only enrich the people that are adept at stealing from the public treasury. He's right to assume that most of this money will enrich the wrong people, and will NOT help 'people's lives'.


                          Of course there's reasons to turn it down, and look what you just wrote. Does it make ANY sense to YOU that Washington sends money to Baton Rouge, and then demands that Baton Rouge send money BACK? Jindal has a better idea: we'll take care of our own, and you can take your well-meaning advice and your not-so-well-meant stipulations on how we are supposed to do things with 'your' money back to DC with you. And I bet they will do just fine, even without the back-and-forthing of billions of dollars.
                          I simply mean that he's going to pay the increased tax burden that's going to result from that kind of deficit spending.
                          USS Toledo, SSN 769

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Ray "chocolate city" Nagin came out and said if Jindal doesn't take the money, he will gladly do so.
                            "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                              Ray "chocolate city" Nagin came out and said if Jindal doesn't take the money, he will gladly do so.
                              The Governator said the same thing. Small wonder, what with the chronic inability of California to keep to a budget. Guess the other 48 states will get to foot the bill for California's fiscal blundering.
                              “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X