« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

If states and local governments don’t want stimulus money, why recycle and waste American taxpayer dollars?

By: Senator David Vitter (Diary)  |  June 24th, 2009 at 02:05 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Yesterday, I introduced legislation that would direct stimulus funds rejected by state governors and local municipalities to paying down the growing national debt.

This week alone, the Louisiana Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations rejected legislation that would call for the state to accept $98 million in stimulus funds that the governor has declined.

Many local and state governments, including in my home state of Louisiana, recognize the future burdens attached to many of these bloated stimulus projects. Congress should use the returned money based on fiscal decisions by those who better understand their own needs – the local and state government officials – to pay down our ever-growing national debt.

In order to prevent a scenario similar to the recycling of the Wall Street and auto bailout money as being currently practiced by the Treasury Department, Congress needs to put in legislative rules that prevent the recycling of your tax money to prevent it from being used for other stimulus projects once rejected by state and local governments.

Since the passage of the stimulus bill, governors, state legislatures and municipalities across the country have taken steps to reject stimulus funds, leaving hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars back in the hands of Washington bureaucrats. My Want Not, Waste Not Act would direct the federal Treasury to use the rejected funds to pay down the national debt.

Ever since the passage of this bloated spending bill, we have seen multiple cases of waste and fraud associated with funding projects, and many local and state officials have outright declared that they do not want this money sent to them by an ever-growing and intrusive federal government.

My bill gives the taxpayers an opportunity to have their money returned to the Treasury to help reduce the burden on their grandchildren instead of spending future generations’ money on unworthy or insolvent projects.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Aaron Gardner
  • http://JoeZilch.com joezilch

    No offense is intended here but that sounds all but trivial.

    You could go back in time and stop the stimulus dead in its tracks in order to direct that money to the debt and that wouldn’t put a dent in the national debt.

    The “rejected” stimulus money going to pay down the debt might be noble but noble actions aren’t worth much these days. It’s worth even less considering the likelihood that if this makes it out of committee there is no way it will pass on the floor.

    Thank you for the effort though, it’s interesting if nothing else.

  • izoneguy

    to REPEAL the stimulus? Every billion you don’t spend is a billion we don’t have to borrow. The stimulus has done NOTHING to really stimulate the economy. Obama’s numbers will fall and the Republicans need to do EVERYTHING possible to stop the Obama bus. America cannot afford anymore Obama plans. We need to pushback now before it is to late. You could staring at 80% tax rates just to pay the interest on the debt. If America defaults then what happens?

  • jcincy

    Not sure of all the technicalities on this, but I’m all for a “retroactive spending cut”.

    And for those who don’t believe it will pass, this is still positive policy. This gives the conservatives a voice to say, we attempted to pass, “Waste Not, Want Not” but the big government obstructionists refused to reach the across the aisle to help the country.

    • http://JoeZilch.com joezilch

      It sends the message of “Too Little, Too Late” because the GOP had countless chances to reduce waste under Bush and the opted to increase it instead.

      (R)s don’t have the media in their corner to make their ideas look important which makes motions like this look like what it is – pandering after the battle was surrendered.

      Something like 40% of the earmarks in the stimulous were added by (R)s which begs the question of where the anti-pork moral high-ground was when it mattered. Sure, the GOP can say they stood united against the plan but they also made sure to line up at the trough to get theirs when they knew it would pass regardless of how they voted. To put that in context – the stimulous would be 40% less of a burden and problem were it not for the “principled” (R)s.