Remember when the worst thing you could say about an allegedly "liberal" political opponent was to charge that they were "out of the mainstream"?
msnbc.com:
msnbc.com:
WASHINGTON - Large majorities of Americans support President Barack Obama's plans to revive the economy and his efforts to work across party lines, according to a pair of public opinion polls released Monday.
One month into his presidency, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found 68 percent of Americans approve of Obama's job performance.
Sixty-four percent of respondents supported the administration's $787 billion economic stimulus package and the same percentage backed his proposal to prevent housing foreclosures, the Washington Post reported.
According to a New York Times/CBS News poll, Obama has a 63 percent job approval rating and more than 75 percent of Americans are optimistic about the next four years with him as president.
But it seems that some Republicans are now the ones out of the mainstream:
State governors -- looking down the gun barrel of long-term spending forced on them by the Obama “stimulus” plan -- are saying they will refuse to take the money. This is a Constitutional confrontation between the federal government and the states unlike any in our time.
In the first five weeks of his presidency, Barack Obama has acted so rashly that at least 11 states have decided that his brand of “hope” equates to an intolerable expansion of the federal government’s authority over the states. These states -- "Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California...Georgia," South Carolina, and Texas -- "have all introduced bills and resolutions" reminding Obama that the 10th Amendment protects the rights of the states, which are the rights of the people, by limiting the power of the federal government. These resolutions call on Obama to “cease and desist” from his reckless government expansion and also indicate that federal laws and regulations implemented in violation of the 10th Amendment can be nullified by the states.
Yeah, you do that. I'm sure your citizens will appreciate their state not getting any stimulus money. And they'll understand that it's for their own good, or it won't do them any good anyway, or whatever the justification is this week. This is an ideological battle, after all, and some of your state's citizens are just going to have to keep suffering like good conscript soldiers for the Right. Sometimes you just have to sacrifice some of your own people for ideological purity.
6 comments:
Huh? Is this like the One World Government conspiracies: states take the stimulus money and local control disappears and the statehouse takes direction from the U.N.? Since when did Federal bucks not come with strings attached, and how is the latest check different?
-Gerard
Incredible to me that these governors so blatantly put positioning themselves on the right of the party for future elections ahead of jobs and help for their citizens. I don't believe it's an ideological decision. Purely pragmatic.
I think it's folly to not accept the money. I don't think the stimulus is going to help (the one last June didn't and then the bailout hasn't either so why would this?) but it doesn't make sense to not accept the money.
Congress has passed the bill and the President has signed it; it's gonna happen. If a state rejects the money, it's not like the government is going to give that money back to China or stuff it back in the printing press, or send it back wherever it came from. They'll probably just give it to someone else or piss it away somehow.
Whatever damage the stimulus will do to our economy is already locked in place by passing the thing. You might as well take the money and hope that you're wrong, that this stimulus will actually work.
It's certainly a bad political move to not accept the money, and anyway, the time to stand up against the stimulus was before it was passed. It's too late to stop the damage (if there will be any) now.
How many governors actually have the right to say no to this money without the backing of their state legislatures? Is this really just political window-dressing on the govs' parts? It'll be interesting to see how this one plays out.
Hear, hear, Dusty! I like Bobby Jindal's approach best--refuse stimulus money for unemployment benefits for part-timers because they might get used to being eligible. Forget whether or not their children are hungry.
Where were these hyper-partisan windbags when george Bush was expanding (grabbing) the power of the executive? Bobby Gindal's response to the president's address last night sickened me. Do these fools who want less guidance for wall street and more limits on my uterus really think the american people are that stupid?
mTw
elected precinct committeeman
State of Indiana
Republican Party
P.S. I'm trying to change the party from the inside outward. Wish me luck with this crowd who's proud to be called "hillbillies"... seriously, it's a compliment around here!
Post a Comment