States relent, take stimulus money

Dangle that carrot long enough and it will be taken.

I think it was disingenuous for states to refuse financial assistance citing good reason not to take it and then take it anyway. It undermines any remaining principles state leadership was trying to exhibit against federal influence over state matters.

I also think it is wrong for the federal government to force state policy changes as a condition for receiving so called assistance.

But such is the state of politics in America. The federal government exerts more and more control over states rights and money talks louder than principle.

clipped from money.cnn.com It's not that easy to turn down federal funds. Several governors who initially voiced concerns about expanding state unemployment benefits to qualify for federal stimulus funds have decided to accept the money Some were feeling the heat from jobless constituents, while others took comfort in learning recently from the federal Department of Labor that they could curtail eligibility later on. The benefits expansion is among the most controversial components of the stimulus package, and it comes at a time when millions of people across the nation are losing their jobs. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act requires state legislatures to broaden the unemployment guidelines to allow more women, part-timers and low-wage workers to qualify. "This isn't about not being compassionate," said Adam Hasner, House Majority Leader in Florida, where unemployment is at 9.4%. "It's about not making a problem worse."

Hypocrisy and the Bailout Bill

clipped from politicalcrises.com Senator McCain’s lists of the top 10 biggest jokes in regards to pork in the bailout bill. $400,000 for copper wire theft prevention efforts $143,000 for Nevada Humanities to develop and expand an online encyclopedia $332,000 for the design and construction of a school sidewalk in Franklin, Texas $100,000 for the regional robotics training center in Union, SC $200,000 “tattoo removal violence outreach program to could help gang members or others shed visible signs of their past” Of the $7.7 billion in earmark spending that led Indiana Senator Evan Bayh to argue that the bill was inappropriate, $2.7 million went to Indiana Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell argued that there was simply too much spending in the bill - but that didn’t stop him from working to bring “home” $51 million in earmarks for his state. Republican Senator Jame Inhofe of Oklahoma who opposed the legislation because of its cost had more than 30 earmarks included - adding up to $53 million.

Aren't Republicans supposed to be the fiscal responsible ones?

I wonder if politicians ask for this money with a straight face. There must be a clause in these requests that says any excess money goes to the general fund.

Earmarks for “the design and construction of a school sidewalk”, “development of an online encyclopedia”, “tattoo removal”?!? This is blatant mis appropriation of funds.

The earmark system itself is not the problem. If earmarks are used to put citizens to work and to generate an income source for the benefit of the general population then I’m all for it.

What we need is a method of prioritizing earmarks so that frivolous projects don’t get funded. And the system needs to be manned and monitored by civilians immune to the reach of politicians.

An alternative solution would be to not tax us so much so there wouldn’t be all this excess money to support tattoo removal.