Schumer To White House: Governors Can't Turn Down Part Of Stimulus
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.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
Good show,,,,,,,,, and not a moment too soon.
February 24, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Go Chuck!
February 24, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please, please, please, White House: adopt Schumer's interpretation!
Make them stand on the "principles" that are oh so very important to them!
February 24, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
They won't. They'll cave, and let the repugs have another win. Chumps.
February 24, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
'Splain please: what "win" have the repugs had?
February 24, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
About time!
February 24, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Will Obama do what's right, or see an opportunity to show his "bipartisanship" cred for the Villagers.
I'm afraid he will do some twisted logic statement that allows the Guvs to pick and choose while claiming the opposite.
February 24, 2009 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well played, Mr. Schumer, well played.
February 24, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the talk shows and in interviews the Repubs keep saying they could have/would have supported the stimulus bill if it contained more infrastructure spending. I do not recall any proposed Republican amendment to add more spending to the package for infrastructure. Their proposals, especially in the House, was more tax cuts and that was about it. Am I wrong, or can anyone remember a Republican proposal for more infrastructure spending that was voted down?
February 24, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
They were against it before they were for it.
February 24, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
exactly
February 24, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go, Chuckie, Go!
February 24, 2009 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans want to be 'Deciders' on the stimulus after all.
February 24, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm. Chuck Schumer's statement seems a little wishy-washy.
I see several instances where he says should or would instead of must or does.
It would appear he's not very certain that the law says what he says it says. Still, a pretty nice shot across the bow of Jindal wt al.
February 24, 2009 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
just watched the vid of chucko. i can see how he rubs some people the wrong way, but he is absolutely spot on with this. the notion of rejecting a portion of the money for any reason, let alone political purposes/grandstanding, is absurd on its face.
February 24, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is interesting. From a political perspective I can see exactly what both sides are up to, and that's no big deal. It's a nice call of their bluff by Schumer, but saying it's "all or nothing" is no less political than the Republican position of wanting to cherry pick the stimulus.
From a legal, legislative standpoint, this is really fascinating too. Can anyone shine some light on this situation? I would think the States have some Sovereign authority to pick and choose the funds they want from the Federal Gov't's stimulus. No? How can the Feds force the States to spend money?
February 24, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know the staffing levels or expertise handing out the money, but every single exemption or exception is going to be like adding grit to your car engine.
If you have a system that says:
1. states get money
2. money is based on a, b, and c
3. you are a state, so here's your money
That's workable in trying to get a complex process completed in a short amount of time.
Now, if I have to add in after #2:
2.b -- okay, now out of this complex package, you can add or subtract any item that suits you, and I have to wait for you to figure it out, tell me, then I confirm the information, THEN I recalculate....
And if I have to do that 50 times for 50 states, it delays this process, and introduces a lot more complexity.
The more complexity, the greater the number of errors.
The more complexity, the greater the risk of fraud or other problems.
Keeping it simple on this time-sensitive project is actually the smartest approach to solving the problem.
The fact that it calls bullshit on political grandstanding is icing on the cake.
(I have another comment farther down on this same topic.)
February 24, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't speak to the legal question, but from an economic standpoint, it would make sense to require an all-or-nothing approach to state acceptance. The whole point of sending money to the states is to keep state and local governments, most of which are prohibited from deficit spending, from undoing at the state and local level what the federal government is trying to accomplish at the national level.
If the federal government gives money to its citizens in the form of lower taxes and increased benefit payments, but the states take it away in the form of higher taxes and fees, decreased unemployment benefits and layoffs of state workers, then the federal government has spent a lot of money with no net benefit. If the federal government injects the economy with money by increased spending for infrastructure, but the states slash their infrastructure projects and shut down services, it's the same thing: the federal government gives, and the state taketh away.
So yeah, I hope Schumer can make that approach stick.
February 24, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is The United States of America, NOT the Confederate States of America! Individual states aren't individual countries. If certain governors don't like this reality, they should petition the federal government to allow their states to secede from the union so that they can be completely independent and autonomous rather than have submit to the will of a democratic majority. Picking and choosing what governmental policies they will or won't abide by isn't exactly what our founding fathers had in mind.
February 24, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jindal and cronies would like to return back to States Right issues.
They want to return to Slavery.
As president Lincoln stated
“that for some men to enslave others is a 'sacred right of self-government.' These principles cannot stand together. They are as opposite as God and Mammon; and whoever holds to the one must despise the other."
http://www.ashbrook.org/library/19/lincoln/peoria.html
The Republicans having installed Judge Roberts who would prove to be like Chief Justice Roger B. Taney of noted fame, in the Dred Scott case, which overturned the provisions of the Act of 1820, known as the Missouri Compromise.
This stimulus bill was presented as a compromise, but the Republicans will say Congress has no authority to interfere with the States who wanted no part in helping to protect the workers or the middle class.
Slave loving Corporations and other companies would relocate to States whose labor force, having exhausted unemployment benefits, would be fighting amongst themselves and who ould work the cheapest.
Companies not concerned about living wages would close shops in States with higher standards.
Of course then the Southern Republican States could claim we created jobs. Cotton pickers have jobs. Never mind the work force would probably live in squalor.
But of course the bleeding heart abolitionists with the help of the Nanny Federal Government, would supply the funds to subsidize the cost of Medical care for the new slave class, and then; the Republicans will rail against Socialized medicine.
February 24, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! I hope you don't run out of tin foil!
February 24, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
12:07 PM
Alcoa Inc. AA (NYSE)
$6.20
Change:+0.39 +6.71%
February 24, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Simply from a practical perspective of getting huge amounts of money to all 50 states and making sure the proper process is explained and followed, it makes sense to keep it simple.
What these governors are doing -- apart from political grandstanding -- is adding more layers of complexity to an already extremely complicated process. These governors are adding far too much confusion; the political equivalent of adding a bunch of grit into your car engine.
Apart from politics, what Schumer's calling for is sane and pragmatic.
Adding in the political piece, it's nice to see him call 'bullshit' on some really disgusting political posturing.
February 24, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reid is a wimp. Schumer for Senate Majority Leader!
February 24, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Won't these states tax payers be paying for these programs in the form of federal tax dollars, whether their states accept the money or not? Are these governors that thick or am I missing something?
February 24, 2009 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The unemployment funds are some of the most stimulative in the bill. Not to use them means the stimulus won't work as well and gives the republicans an opportunity to say "Told ya so" in 2010. So yes, it's political just like the republicans unified stand against the bill was political. They do not want the economy to improve so they can run on its failure in 2010. That's their only chance. They figure they can keep above (or below) the fray and then place blame on the Dems when things don't improve.
February 24, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is so attractive to the ReThugs about turning down unemployment money? Can they point to jobs in their states that are not being filled because lazy folk are taking unemployment instead of jobs?
Seriously, I don't understand where they're coming from, politically or economically.
February 24, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Philosophically they are coming from the American Protestant belief in "grace". God smiles on the just, good, blessed, ... whatever. This is God's grace. If you are successful, powerful, wealthy, this is evidence of God's grace. You are chosen. Ergo, if you lose your job, are born poor, or use the wrong fork, you are not "graced". God intends for you to suffer. Why should "we the elected" help those who even God has rejected. "We" tend to be Republicans.
February 24, 2009 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hunh?? Protestant belief (American or otherwise) is that grace is available, freely and equally, to all. The fact that fundamentalist voices in this country often cite material blessings as proof of God's favor does not change the basic doctrine. Grace is "unmerited favor" which is universal and is based on God's love, not on the worthiness of the individual. The only requirement of the believer in this conception is acceptance of the offer. It presupposes imperfection and unrighteousness else there would be no need for grace in the first place.
Even the most rabid of the televangelists would agree to this definition of grace, which makes it very difficult to understand how they manage to run themselves so far off the tracks when it comes to their essentially elevating material prosperity to a kind of litmus test for virtue. Their position is remarkably inconsistent and requires an impressive level of double think. But inaccurately stating the basic belief only allows them to dismiss you as a witless tool of the devil.
February 25, 2009 4:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would call this "Showing Backbone" I do hope that the Obama Administration take heed to Schumer's words.
February 24, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
First, read the statute. Any fair contextual reading of Sec. 1607(b) indicates a Congressional expectation that governors might turn down only some of the funds. But if the governor said "no," Congress authorized state legislators to say "yes."
Given the language of Sec. 1607(b), the implication is that Shumer (or an aide that read only Sec. 1607(a)) missed this call by 180 degrees.
Does anyone disagree strongly with my conclusion? Eric? Any comments?
February 25, 2009 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink