« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Washington Becomes Rome

Senator Schumer Holds States Hostage to Porkulus

image

Chuck Schumer wants the White House’s Office of Management and Budget to tell states they have no choice in the use of porkulus funds.

Below the fold is the entire letter. It’s is amazing in its reach. In effect, states will have zero discretion in how they spend the money and which parts they take.

This stems from Gov. Bobby Jindal and others saying they would not take the whole package because some parts would force state tax increases to comply with the terms of Porkulus.

Schumer says that’s tough. States will be forced to increase taxes and take 100% of the money if he has his way. And the states will have no discretion.

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.

This is breathtaking. It, in effect, makes the states servants of the federal government. States rights, etc. are out the window. And never mind that the unemployment insurance provisions would force taxes on the small businesses that are currently the only thing propping up the American economy.

This is how it is to be, folks — the federal Emperor and his Imperial Senate ordering fealty and servitude from the states. And if Washington does not get the fealty and loyalty, the states will be cut off, their people hurt, their businesses shut down, etc.

Washington has become Rome. And with Barney Frank up there, we’ve even got the licentiousness and male prostitution rings. Next up: throwing Christians t the lions.

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

COMMENTS

  • EagleWatcher

    If this doesn’t define the phrase then it has no meaning.

  • kchand

    “That government is best which governs least.”

    “It is the duty of the Patriot to protect his country from its government.”

    Thomas Paine

  • Aaron Gardner

    These guys are going to reach too far and find themselves to be the object of contempt of the American people, and the American people are in favor of disproportionate response, rightly so.

    These guys truly mean to do harm to us and our country, whether they realize it or not.

  • Achance

    and made us kiss the ring to get some of it back – the way things worked from the Great Society onward. Now, as Francis so notably pointed out, in the short run they don’t even need our money. They don’t have to ask for tax increases to hold the states hostage, they just print and borrow money. This is what truly makes Washington the Imperial City; there’s nothing we can do to stop them and the effects of the inflation and borrowing are so abstract and the effect so diffuse that the dumbed down electorate simply cannot be made to understand it.

  • Spartan4Life

    Isn’t it widely held that John of Patmos had Nero in mind as the anti-Christ?

    I’m noy saying, I’m just saying….

  • Praying

    This is obscene. First of all, Obama signs this grotesque “stimulus” bill, and sets his promise to “reduce the taxes for 95% of Americans ” in place, and the very next week, he claims to want to reduce the deficit by raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations. OMG! Let’s just get rid of the whole stupid thing! There is no “stimulus” in this bill, to speak of. It is only a vehicle to ram through the left’s socialist agenda. I wish EVERY SINGLE STATE would reject these funds! It is only going to hurt the states in the long run. This country has gone freaking MAD!

  • E Pluribus Unum

    It does not MATTER what he says, what he wants, what he claims.

    He can just go suck it.

    If he wants to make an issue of it, he will find out what is what. Only the federal courts can force the states to do that (and I’d say the states can mount a formidable case to stop it).

  • texas214

    Schumer may not want this fight given there is clear law on that the fed’s can’t impose new laws onto or infringe on the states rights. I would expect the Supreme Court would bitch slap Schumer so fast his head would spin.

    All of this legislation and stimulus appears to be a move by highly urbanized blue states which are having trouble competing in the “market place” of jobs, lifestyle, and desirability; forcing others states and parts of the country to accept thimgs they don’t like to “equalize’ competiveness. You see it with the unions, car companies, auto standards, welfare, banking regulation…… This administration and congress are only making the divide bigger.

    NOTE: Obama’s comment about those “clingers” says it all.

  • izoneguy

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30807

    When the Constitution was being ratified during the 1780s, the 10th Amendment was understood to be the linchpin that held the entire Bill of Rights together. The amendment states: ?The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

  • RJD

    Could Sanford and Jindal and other governors sue the US Congress for violation of the 10th Amendment?

  • izoneguy

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/opinion/24tue1.html

    I think all the governors should sue.

    But I doubt the democrats will. They would not mind a federal take-over. And we know how Arnold feels – “Give me the money”.

    So here it is – The feds take our tax money – redistribute it by force and then destroy the very engine that produces the tax money.
    These democrats are real smart.

  • Alberta

    if unemployment insurance ‘provides an economic return of as high as $1.73 for every dollar invested.’ really is true, why do any of us work?

    Democrats are so cute when they try to play with numbers.

  • izoneguy

    and closed my business.

    It was just such a burden. I had a service business so I did not know if I would have cash flow on any given month. I had to pay employees if I had business or not. It was like Russian roulette. Of course this is true for any business. That was 8 years ago so I imagine it must be even tougher today. And people wonder why they lose jobs and cannot find another one. They need to try a start a business and then run it to see what small business owners are up against. Obama is not the friend of small business.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    First act – actively refuse the money and tell the Administration and Congress to go pound sand.

    Second act – the feds decide whether to sue to force the states to act.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    With prophetic skills like that, Schumer is seriously underemployed. Why with such ability to predict the future, he should be Treasury Secretary. Heck, that’s not high enough a positin – he should be chief augur to the emperor!

  • BlueLandRed

    SCOTUS is going to take this up because they have repeatedly allowed the feds to fund projects with restrictions that states don’t like.

    Schumer’s argument is that the governors have a choice, all or nothing. I don’t know enough about whats in the bill to know that’s in fact true. But assuming Schumer is right, nothing the Feds are doing is forcing the states to take the money, so there is hardly a 10 amendment case here.

    It’s the same with all the highway spending bills, obey the federal regulations on autos and road and stuff or no money for you.

  • izoneguy

    the states counter sue –

    Take the money and then deposit it off shore accounts the Feds cannot touch.

  • jackbenimble

    it provides an economic return of as high as $1.73 for every dollar invested.

    This sounds like one terrific investment! I wonder if there is a way to securitize all these unemployed people into some sort of investment vehicle. We could sell them to banks and hedge funds and all their problems would be solved. Just to make sure nobody got stuck holding securities where to many people actually managed to find jobs, we could cut them up into risk pools which tried to distinguish between the temporarily unemployed, the chronically unemployed and the flat-out unemployable.

    I can’t image why we would want anybody to work when we can just invest in everybody being on unemployment and we all get rich. If 7% unemployment yields these kinds of high double digit returns just think how much better off we would be if we had 14% unemployment. The economy would be rocking and rolling and the deficit problem would be solved.

  • izoneguy

    LOL – Don’t give Wall Street anymore ideas!!!!

    You should e-mail your thoughts to Chuckie!!!!

  • red4ever

    all or nothing is not allowed. The best case on this was South Dakota v. Dole which involved highway funds and the legal drinking age. I don’t have it handy, so I am going from memory here. Anyway, the basic factors are 1) there must be a rationale relationshp between the federal program funded and the restriction and 2) the states must be able to make a rational choice. In S. Dakota only 5% of the highway funds were at stake if the drinking age was not raised, so that was considered a small enough stick to still allow the states to choose. By forcing the states to either take all the money or get nothing at all for anything, an argument could be made that the states really don’t have a choice here.

    Someone with a better memory on this case, might want to check me on this.

  • red4ever

    I am willing ot admit I don’t understand economics. Can someone please explain how there is a return on paying people not to work? I mean sure, through unemployment insurance the laid off person still has money so can pay his bills. But, 1) he has less than he would be making if he was working so can pay fewer bills and/or spend less and 2) if he were working he would be paying his bills and spending anyway. So where does the ROI come from?

  • mom2oneson

    I contract with several different places. I basically have unlimited work.
    One company I contracted with was sued and forced to hire everyone as an employee. Now yhey refuse to hire in states that don’t allow opting out of unemployment or workman’s comp. I’m not sure which one it is.
    I know we posted about this before but at a place I worked before, one department gave up their benefits and went per diem to keep the dept open. Now they were still an employees though just no benefits or a guaranteed 40 hour work week on paper.

    People are like we have to have insurance but you can buy coverage for a with a high deductable like $5 or 7,000 in case of something serious happens you will only have the 5 or 7, 000 deductable and it’s very inexpensive to buy that type of coverage.
    It seems like for the middle class the idea of paying anything but $10 of pocket freaks them out and they want fully covered everything for insurance not just something serious to keep their hospital or home health bills paid and protect their home or bank accounts.

  • LoveThatConstitution

    Most of this bill in the first place cant be tied to any enumerated power in the Constitution in the first place.

  • Achance

    as outside federal jurisdiction will bring down the wrath of the Looters and Moochers and put themselves in the Wilderness for generations. I’m sure BHO and his buds would just love for some Republican governor/AG to sue to declare Porkulus unconstitutional.

  • LoveThatConstitution

    That is of course if you calculate that in government economics, not market economics.

    See, you get people onto unemployment for a buck. The number of people now dependent on unemployment has grown. Next year you can go back and show how many more unfortunate people need it and can ask for $1.73 for every dollar you got the year before.

    Simple. :-)

  • mom2oneson

    I don’t believe it that people can’t find work. I have always been able to find work! Even in a new city without a car, with a toddler by my side. I was able to find work within a week of moving there.
    I just wonder how hard peple are trying? I’m sure there are some elderly it can be hard for due to discrimination but I don’t believe it for people under 60 that they can’t find work. I have seen it through the years,where a friend’s husband who has has his wife to watch their child supposedly can’t find work for months but I have always been able to find a job very quickly. There are always places like call centers, janitorial and food service that are hiring.

  • mom2oneson

    :-)

  • LoveThatConstitution

    Tonight i will go home, close my eyes, fall asleep and dream.

    But then i wake up.

    Ah, if someday John Shadegg’s Enumerated Powers Act became a reality…there’d be a lot of prime commercial real estate available in DC.

  • http://conservative-and-proud.blogspot.com/ eschristian

    n/t

  • mom2oneson

    It’s probably some thinking like it keeps them from poverty or off a different gov assistance program. Like TANF vs daycare assistance. Susbisized daycare saves all of that TANF $. They are just spending more on daycare payments for 5 kids than TANF payments though.

  • janis

    voodoo economics. The price is too high to doubt the GOVERNMENT’S word on such things. You must cast away all doubts and just believvvvvvvveeeeeee……………

    Or you can join the revolution with the rest of us. These people are so off in the weeds with this stuff that you can barely see the tops of their pointy little heads. One wonders if they believe their own s**t or if they just throw it out there thinking that the rest of us are too stupid to figure it out.

  • Achance

    Actually, I’m not much troubled by UI since it is a form of insurance and employees pay for it. Granted, employers pay as well, but that is money that could be on a paycheck but rather goes to UI.

  • BlueLandRed

    has an article on it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole

    The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision authored by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, ruled that Congress had engaged in a valid exercise of its power under the Taxing and Spending Clause, and did not violate the 21st Amendment. Rehnquist said that Congress’s conditional spending is subject to four restrictions:

    1. The condition must promote “the general welfare;”
    2. The condition must be unambiguous;
    3. The condition should relate “to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs;” and
    4. Other constitutional provisions may provide an independent bar to the conditional grant of federal funds.

    The first three restrictions, Rehnquist noted, are uncontested. This leaves the fourth restriction. The Tenth Amendment bars federal regulation of the States, and it has been suggested that the Twenty-First Amendment might prohibit federal regulation of the drinking age. Nevertheless, the Congressional condition of highway funds is merely a “pressure” on the State to comply, not a “compulsion” to do so, because the State’s failure to meet the condition deprives it of only 5%

    Anyways, I’m just not convinced that SCOTUS is going to jump into this mess.

    Of course, I’m not exactly sure what Schumer and his allies would do if the some of the governors took all the money and then just didn’t actually spend it all.

  • mom2oneson

    They make it sound like the unemployed “can’t find work.” It should be they can’t find work they prefer to do. They make it into a desperate situation when it isn’t.

  • JustLeaveMeAlone

    Same pay, benefits, etc.

  • palinberry2012

    Interesting post. I actually did a term paper on this subject. The parallels of the rise and fall of our civilizations are pretty eerie.

  • mom2oneson

    to both of you! I have always wondered what the deal was. Like these men have nothing to do around the house, the don’t have to bring kids with them, they have cars, they live in the community so probably know where places are, I just have never understood it.

  • Cowboy

    That’s good. You should patent that one.

  • bobojake

    Cluckie and obama are twins ,the gloves fits. God Bless America in this time of need.

  • jackbenimble

    But the 201K thing has been floating around a lot lately.

  • mom2oneson

    Can he acutally do it?

  • Achance

    like construction and fishing. You work huckletybuck all summer, make all the money you can then get laid off come the end of the season. You take off to some place warm and draw your UI until it is time to go to work next spring. Of course, because of this, Alaska has among the highest UI insurance costs in the Country.

  • jackbenimble

    When GHWB first coined the phrase voodoo economics he was referring to Volker Style Monetarism and most particularly to Art Laffer’s laffer curve.

    This 1.73 multiplier thing is pure Keynsianism. All Government spending gets a Keynsian multiplier attached to it and as Obama informed us a couple of weeks ago “all spending is stimulus”.

    It of course begs the question, if $700+ billion of spending (which Chuckie refers to as “investment”) is good, why not just go the whole hog and spend $700+ trillion?

    Just fire up the presses and start printing out those “Obama Bucks”. In the Chosen One We Trust.

    There is only one slight hitch with the whole Keynsian multplier thing. It has been tried again and history has pretty much proven that it does not work.

  • janis

    just used that phrase to describe something completely off the wall that makes no sense in the real world. “Make-believe” economics if you prefer.

    Or “Obamanomics.” Same thing.

  • texas214

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30807

    A good explaination.

  • http://www.fredmaidment.com Fred Maidment

    …in 300 years, Scientology will be our state religion?

  • http://www.incredibleco.ning.com Incredible

    If only we could have a war over states rights (that some would later claim was really about economics and the practitioners thereof).

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    when federalism was such a key part of the miracle that made this country great with its happiness maximization effect

  • AceInTX

    we should not let the implementation of the package be dictated by political considerations.

    Isn’t the whole package made up of political considerations including all this tiny minute earmarks you claim the American People don’t care about.

    I think it’s high time every single Governor and legislature across this country stop taking any money from the federal government and accepting the Federal Regulatory strings that come with it.

    Each state should collect it’s own taxes and ay a small percent to Washington to maintain itself with limiting it’s functions to those enumerated in the Constitution in the order of priority presented in the Constitution and nothing more. Return us to a federalists form of government and drain the swamp that is foggy bottom!

    I know, I know…it’ll never happen without a bloody revelution so it will never happen…But I can dream can’t I?

  • AceInTX

    every time he opens his self righteous, condescending, snobbish and arrogant pie hole he reinforces in people’s mind what is wrong with the Democrat Party.

    I can’t think of any other single individual that could send people scurrying in desperation to the polls in 2010 than Cuck the pompous Schumer!

  • mom2oneson

    That is so funny!!!! :-)
    It sounds like a rebate/reward type of promotion.

  • AceInTX

    It’s the way the Federal Government has gotten to where it is by skirting the 10th Amendment.

    The Federal Government has taken on the roll of a crack dealer…put a little crack, (read federal funding) out there for free and with no strings attached to get the mark, (Read the States)addicted….once they become junkies and only then, the Crack Dealer dangles more crack in front of the junkies and demand that they turn tricks for the dealer and pay with their soul in order to get their next fix! It’s all good at first…but eventually the junkie starts deteriorating and ultimately dies! leaving the dealer to move onto the next mark!

  • AceInTX

    and the Federal Government would be so awash in cash from that 73 cents on every dollar we all are collecting that the government could increase our unemployment even more so they’d have 73 cents more on every dollar to send out and earn 73 cents more…

    Makes perfect sense to me Alberta…let’s do it!

  • AceInTX
  • AceInTX

    laying natural gas pipelines with the international laborers union…these guys would go out 3 months out of the year, (in summer usually), work 12 and 16 our days 6 days a week for those 3 months and lay back and collect unemployment benefits for nine months out of the year. They did quite well with while collecting 80% of their pay for that quarter. each quarter your new benefits were calculated based on the amount you collected the quarter before unemployment so it was a sliding scale so it was a declining return which they made up for with all the overtime money they collected in their savings accounts by working 16 hour days 6 days a week.

    When the well went dry it was summer again and off they’d go for another 3 months…

    Nice huh?

  • AceInTX

    Oddly enough…those that subverted states rights to bring about “equality” are the very people who favored big government solutions to every problem. It’s quite a coincidence that those supporting big government anti federalist policies ended up being the main beneficiaries of the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement and somehow the plight of the people they swore to support were demoralized and destroyed by their policies after the end of segregation!