If A State Governor Refuses Federal Investment Funds...

Does anyone feel that they shouldnt be given any further funding by the federal government until that governor is out of office and someone else has been chosen by that States citizens?

Personally i feel like all these governors saying they will refuse the funds that have been allocated to their states are idiots and should be punished by not being allowed any other federal funding, yes, its also going to hurt the individuals living in these state but, by the time the next election comes around for state governor, im pretty sure that these states will vote for someone else to run the state based on a bad decision not to accept this funding.

Your thoughts, should these governors accept the funds being offered to them to help better the infrastructure for their states residents or do you think they are right for refusing this much needed funding?

Regards,

Lee

I think it's disgusting how politicians are having pissing contests while the country goes down the gutter.

I think the politicians using our current crisis, that they helped create, to single themselves out as being a step above, are seriously fucked and should be hung. I'm tired of these corrupt people shitting on our country and hard working Americans, it needs to stop!

too busy playing politics to get down to the business of governing.

I heard the governor of Louisiana explain his "rejection" on Meet The Press yesterday. It's really not as bad as it sounds - he's just rejecting very specific parts of the money. He's accepting the vast majority of the money - and he's one of the vocal ones saying he's rejecting the money...

For example he talked about how the bailout requires the state to make permanent changes to their unemployment benefits if they take bailout money for unemployment insurance (using sunsetting isn't OK). The changes would result in the state being liable for additional money once the federal bailout money stopped flowing. In the long run it makes more sense for them to not take the bailout money in that one particular instance.

He actually said he welcomes money for roads and ports and levies - and wishes there were more money for those items.

In other words, the governors really aren't being that crazy - at least the he wasn't... I think the guy from South Carolina might be a different case though...

I gotta say listening to Schwarzenegger yesterday - I was really really impressed. He's an independent at heart, loves the bailout, hates partisan politics, and is trying to gut the 2 party system in California by having open primary elections where the two top candidates of whatever party go on to the general election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee

Does anyone feel that they shouldnt be given any further funding by the federal government until that governor is out of office and someone else has been chosen by that States citizens?

---

Absolutely not, Lee. For years under the Bush administration the federal government was offering money to states to teach sex education. The condition was that they had to teach abstinence-based sex ed. Many governors, knowing this is a crock of shit, refused the money on the basis that it would do more harm than good to their states.

If governors disagree with strings attached to the money in the stimulus package (and there are strings), they are free to refuse the money. That doesn't mean their opponents shouldn't make an issue of it, just as conservatives certainly did when liberal governors refused the sex ed money.

But no, I don't think Congress should be cutting off, say, federal highway funds, just because a governor doesn't want to accept all of the money offered to it. If a governor can do better without accepting money from the feds, then more power to them.

--Aaron