Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Should Governors Be Allowed to Reject Some, but Not All Stimulus Funds

That is a dilemma that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wants to prevent. Sen. Schumer sent a letter to the OMB Director urging an interpretation of the stimulus bill that provides that it is a take or leave type of situation.
“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,” Schumer wrote.
Now three southern, Republican governors have indicated that they will not take all of the stimulus funds.

Here is the problem, the last time I checked we lived in a federal republic. That means that the states should not have something shoved down their throats.

Here is another thing, if Schumer doesn't like the fact that some governors might want to take some of the funds and not other funds, then it is within Congress's ability to make that change in the law. Why does Schumer need to ask OMB to make an interpretive ruling.

This is just symptomatic of Congress. They pass a trillion dollar package, pat themselves on the back for doing so and then leave it to flounder around for direction. There is no accountability. If OMB decides that the law does allow governors to pick and choose the funds to accept, then Schumer gets to whine a little more about executive authority or disregard.

Hey Senator Schumer, if you don't like what might happen, change the bloody law.

Here is more from Human Events.
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, [Minnesota]...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 limting 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.
Are we looking at an assertion of states' right again? I would hope so.

No comments: