Schumer to GOP governors: Stimulus isn't a la carte menu

[Are_grits_groceries]

WASHINGTON, DC--Senator Charles Schumer released the following letter Tuesday urging the Obama administration to notify governors that they must certify acceptance of stimulus funding in full or not at all, rather than selectively approving and rejecting the law's various components.

February 24, 2009

Dear Director Orszag:

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.

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.

For instance, at least two governors have proposed rejecting a program to expand unemployment insurance for laid-off workers. Economists consistently rank unemployment insurance among the most efficient and cost-effective fiscal stimulus measures; by one frequently cited estimate, it provides an economic return of as high as $1.73 for every dollar invested. Thus, by denying this provision for their residents, these governors are not just depriving some of the neediest Americans of relief in a dire economy; they are undermining the overall stimulative impact of the package.

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.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

HEH! Go Chuck.

[atreides1]

1. I like it

They can either take it all or get none.

[redirish28]

2. Finally showing some backbone. Either they take it or let the public

know they are screwing around.

[bdamomma]

7. and screwing their constituents too.

[Johonny]

good

None of this taking 99% of the money then giving grandstanding speeches to the media about how fiscally responsible you are and how you can't work with this congress. TDS had a great skit on Jindal et al. and their taking money and professing just the opposite.

[Love Bug]

3. I'd like to know which two govenors are contemplating rejecting unemployment funding

Bastards. One of them had better not be mine!

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. Good for you, Chuck. No picking and choosing.

[TlalocW]

5. Good for them

If a republican governor wants to play politics instead of help the citizens of his state, he or she can face the consequences. Either split the refusals up among all other states or put it into some sort of fund and let it earn interest until the governor wises up then split the interest among the non-refusing states.

TlalocW

[bdamomma]

6. if they don't want the money let their constituents ask them why

they didn't take it? are those governors willing to see more people out of work, or will they see their constituents go to States who do have the jobs. Food for thought.

(don't they know by now their freaking tax cuts got us into this mess).

[LynneSin]

8. Take it or leave it - that's my opinion

Hell, here in Delaware we'll be happy to take any additional money not wanted by idiots like Sanford or Jindal. I know even the GOvernator out in California (a republican) has said to give him what other states do not want.

Either you take the money or you don't and face the wrath of your constituents who will want to elect you out of office.

[bdamomma]

12. exactly, and one person I think a Governor told a constituent to pray.

I think I heard this on Hardball last nite, but it shows you how filthy those repigs are.

[dgibby]

16. That would be Gov Mark Sanford of SC.

Too bad we didn't elect Fred Sanford instead. We'd be much better off! Sanford, Graham, Demint-the Unholy Trinity. All of them would drown in the shallow end of the gene pool.

[BlooInBloo]

9. No line item gubernatorial veto of federal law. Good.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

10. Good.

[nc4bo]

11. Excellent. All or nothing. nt

[B Calm]

13. I agree with the republicans! The stimulus package should be

used only for creating jobs. The last 8 years of tax breaks for the rich didn't create any and it won't work now!

[Winterblues]

14. I do not understand the economic return factor very well.

When someone gives you a dollar to spend how can it turn into $1.73 in economic return. I understand the concept that money given out to lowest income or unemployed will most likely immediately be spent, in other words boost the economy, but how does it make the dollar they receive worth almost twice it's value? Is it somehow related to money given in tax cuts that may not be spent at all on products but put into foreign exchange or ? If they don't spend their dollar does that mean the dollar you spend is worth more? :shrug: I am trying to logic it out and get all puzzled up.

[Deep13]

15. Federal vs. state, Fed. wins. nt