Governors Threaten to Violate Duties They Owe to Their Constituents
Via Steve Benen:
First there would be nothing principled about refusing Federal stimulus money. These very same governors routinely accept all sorts of federal money. In fact, if you rank states according to the ratio of federal money received per tax dollar contributed, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alaska are all in the top 4. South Carolina and Idaho are in the top 20 and receive significantly more in federal money than they contribute.
These politicians are not standing up for principle. They are grandstanding. Most of them (particularly Palin, Sanford, and Jindal) are trying to raise their national profile and give themselves a talking point to use in a future presidential run.
Moreover, they are doing so in direct contravention of the interests of their own constituents. These folks are not federal office holders. Their duty is to look after the interests of the people of their respective states, not to police the federal budget. If they were CEOs of a corporation or trustees of organization or trust, this kind of action would be seen as a breach of their fiduciary duties. They would get sued. And rightfully so. By turning down federal stimulus money, they would be inflicting harm on their own citizens.
And for what? It's not as if turning down this money (assuming they even have the power to do so) would save the federal tax payers any money. These funds have already been appropriated and they're going to get spent.
In the end, I'm quite confident that all of these governors will take the money. But no one should be applauding their threats to breach their fiduciary duties to their own citizens. These people are putting their national political ambitions ahead of the best interests of their constituents. That's a firing offense in my view.
[A]t last count, there were six conservative Republicans -- Govs. Perry (Texas), Barbour (Mississippi), Jindal (Louisiana), Sanford (South Carolina), Palin (Alaska), and Otter (Idaho) -- who have at least raised the possibility of turning down federal stimulus.Many, including a number of fellow Republicans, have criticized these governors and suggested that they taking their ideology too far. I think that's being far too charitable.
First there would be nothing principled about refusing Federal stimulus money. These very same governors routinely accept all sorts of federal money. In fact, if you rank states according to the ratio of federal money received per tax dollar contributed, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alaska are all in the top 4. South Carolina and Idaho are in the top 20 and receive significantly more in federal money than they contribute.
These politicians are not standing up for principle. They are grandstanding. Most of them (particularly Palin, Sanford, and Jindal) are trying to raise their national profile and give themselves a talking point to use in a future presidential run.
Moreover, they are doing so in direct contravention of the interests of their own constituents. These folks are not federal office holders. Their duty is to look after the interests of the people of their respective states, not to police the federal budget. If they were CEOs of a corporation or trustees of organization or trust, this kind of action would be seen as a breach of their fiduciary duties. They would get sued. And rightfully so. By turning down federal stimulus money, they would be inflicting harm on their own citizens.
And for what? It's not as if turning down this money (assuming they even have the power to do so) would save the federal tax payers any money. These funds have already been appropriated and they're going to get spent.
In the end, I'm quite confident that all of these governors will take the money. But no one should be applauding their threats to breach their fiduciary duties to their own citizens. These people are putting their national political ambitions ahead of the best interests of their constituents. That's a firing offense in my view.
posted by A.L. at 12:46 PM
9 Comments:
My caveat on this from another situation:
HHS wanted to buy a local mansion to turn into temporary shelter for unaccompanied illegal immigrant minors from asia. The argument from the Director in charge of the project was that local taxpayers should not oppose the project, because no state or local taxes would be used to support it, but federal taxes would.
My rejoinder at the zoning board hearing was that we all paid federal taxes, and that using $2,000,000 to buy a upscale home for a purpose that could be filled by a property at 25% of the cost was a waste of our money.
Needless to say, they were not happy with me.
Well, looks like Booby Jindal has made his decision:
"Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal announced Friday that he will decline stimulus money specifically targeted at expanding state unemployment insurance coverage, becoming the first state executive to officially refuse any part of the federal government’s payout to states."
Palin will be next...she can't let BJ get the leg up on her:)
Sorry that quote above was from Yahoo News...
Any gov. who refuses the stimulus should be immediately recalled/impeached.
These Republican Taliban, the Party of "NO" the voters need to say NO to them.Let their little heads start imploding... as people start change to dem, except for the real minority the wingnuts.
Gov. Paylenty of MN is waffling on whether he'll take the money, but the legislature is all set to overrule him
クレジットカード現金化クレジットカード 現金化現金化現金化クレジットカード現金化ショッピング枠現金化ショッピング枠 現金化ショッピング枠現金化現金化クレジットカード現金化現金化ショッピング枠現金化現金化ショッピング枠 現金化クレジットカード現金化クレジットカード現金化現金化現金化クレジットカード 現金化ショッピング枠現金化株式投資投資顧問株式投資投資顧問株式投資投資顧問競馬予想競馬 予想オンラインカジノオンラインカジノ競艇予想競艇 予想株式投資投資顧問競輪予想商品先物投資顧問商品先物投資顧問商品先物プチ整形まつげエクステフェイスリフトフェイスリフトまつげエクステ専門
Rep Weiner has proposed a plan to redistribute money rejected to other states. I wonder if calling their bluff on "rejecting" the money will work?
charlie christ (r) gov. of florida is happy to take the 12 billion and has said so.
Although I complete disagree with the actions of these governors, it is not correct to say that they have a fiduciary responsibility to accept this money because it does require them to change their miserly unemployment insurance program and pay for this in the future. In other words, there are real future fiscal impacts on the state.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home