Republicans principles: Will they reject the stimulus money headed to their district?

[jAZ]

What about Republicans who end up with the Monday? Will they be sending it back?

[BucEyedPea]

No

[Direckshun]

Republicans don't actually disapprove of the stimulus package. At least the ones in Congress don't. They're just hedging their bets.

[Adam]

From my own elected representative...

http://thepoliticsofliberty.blogspot.com/

Give Liberty a Chance!
"God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies"

And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgement of faith in God and His works.

- Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1850
Friday, January 30, 2009

Here We Go Again

This past week Governor Jay Nixon delivered the annual State of the State address to the Missouri General Assembly, the Missouri Supreme Court, Missouri Cabinet heads, and to the people of our great state.

This annual address has become the vehicle for a governor to outline his vision for Missouri and present the executive branch’s budget recommendations for the next fiscal year. It is also the event that adds definition to the agenda boundaries of each body in the legislature and the governor’s office for the current session of the General Assembly.

Last week the consensus revenue estimate (CRE) was staked out at 1% or approximately $7.7 billion. The CRE is the amount of growth in general revenue that the state expects to collect in the next fiscal year. Once that number is determined, the House and Senate use that number as the ceiling throughout the appropriations process.

Unlike Congress, we must have a balanced budget. The state of Missouri can’t print money to satisfy unrestrained and politically motivated spending habits. To have a balanced budget, the General Assembly and the governor’s office must build a state budget at or, preferably, below that target.

Governor Nixon’s budget proposal would spend $8.8 billion of general revenue, a number that exceeds the agreed upon CRE by $1.1 billion, or 14% - this is not a balanced budget proposal. The governor would pay for these excessive increases with federal “stimulus” money, which I contend is federal “dependence” money, that Missouri is expected to receive which is about $809 million dollars.

After four years of fiscal discipline, a budget is now being proposed that relies on significant one-time monies that may or may not materialize. Our budget difficulties earlier this decade stemmed from uncontrolled spending that relied on one-time monies. This can’t be done, but politicians are often afraid of making the difficult decisions that require discipline, because they fear unpopularity. The disciplined decisions of the past four years have put Missouri in better financial position to weather this economic downturn than most states.

The Missouri House has pounded its first stake in the ground. We will not balance our state budget on monies that may or may not come in the mail - we refuse to rely on a federal welfare check to meet the needs of our state. It may be considered good politics by some, but it is lousy fiscal policy. We can’t allow the federal “stimulus” to lead us down the path to ever more federal dependency.

How out of touch with our existing economic situation can we be to accept a budget that requires a 14% increase in economic growth knowing that we average 3.5% growth in Missouri in typical years?

This is a time for restraint, a time to prioritize, and a time to drive efficiencies into the state bureaucracy. It is a time to shed the hindrances that hold back innovation and invention, a time to empower Missourians to build dreams, not sustain them where they are.

This is a time when doing what is right is far more important that doing what is popular, because what is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right.

[Taco John]

Republicans principles: Will they reject the stimulus money headed to their district?

Why should they refuse money to their districts? That has nothing to do with principles. If the money is being divvied out, their job is to get as much of it from the trough as they can for the people that they're representing.

Where principles come in is how they vote on it in the first place. They should vote against it. But once they do that, and it passes, there's nothing unprincipled about doing what you can to get your district's share. In fact, it would be unprincipled not to, considering that those people (and their children) will be on the tax hook for it.

[Taco John]

With that, I voted No in the poll. It would be stupid of them to reject funds out of some liberal's misguided ideas about principles.

[Iowanian]

Jaz.

Did you take a blow to the head, say around 1999/2000?

Was any gray matter exposed?

[memyselfI]

They should follow Claire McCaskill's lead. She promised to vote against a stimulus plan that included earmarks and pork. Chis Stigall has it on tape. :thumb:

[HonestChieffan]

Im not sure if you are just trolling or if you really believe that a US rep can stand in front of moneys allocated by legislation and stop the flow of that money.

[jAZ]

Republicans principles: Will they reject the stimulus money headed to their district?

Why should they refuse money to their districts? That has nothing to do with principles. If the money is being divvied out, their job is to get as much of it from the trough as they can for the people that they're representing.

Where principles come in is how they vote on it in the first place. They should vote against it. But once they do that, and it passes, there's nothing unprincipled about doing what you can to get your district's share. In fact, it would be unprincipled not to, considering that those people (and their children) will be on the tax hook for it.
Ah yes, the Ron Paul defense. Ear marks are good for me, just not for everyone. :p

Anyway, the fact that the Repubilcans who spent much of the last 8 years trashing Dems who objected to the value of Bush's tax cuts (and particularly the "stimulus" value no less) by telling them "tell ya what, you just keep paying your taxes if you want and I'll won't"... are now holding the opposite position when faced with a similar choice... says quite a lot about the non-sense that was spewed at the time.

[mlyonsd]

Rejecting simulus money that will create jobs, no.

Pork? If they vote yes for that I'll be disappointed. Just like the last several years.

[Taco John]

Ah yes, the Ron Paul defense. Ear marks are good for me, just not for everyone. :p

You've got the defense skewed, but I'm not shocked that you're turning into the dishonest person that yesterday's Republicans were when they were in power.


Anyway, the fact that the Repubilcans who spent much of the last 8 years trashing Dems who objected to the value of Bush's tax cuts (and particularly the "stimulus" value no less) by telling them "tell ya what, you just keep paying your taxes if you want and I'll won't"... are now holding the opposite position when faced with a similar choice... says quite a lot about the non-sense that was spewed at the time.


Better yet, you admit that you're turning into the dishonest person that yesterday's Republicans were when they were in power.

Feel the change!

[patteeu]

Republicans principles: Will they reject the stimulus money headed to their district?

Why should they refuse money to their districts? That has nothing to do with principles. If the money is being divvied out, their job is to get as much of it from the trough as they can for the people that they're representing.

Where principles come in is how they vote on it in the first place. They should vote against it. But once they do that, and it passes, there's nothing unprincipled about doing what you can to get your district's share. In fact, it would be unprincipled not to, considering that those people (and their children) will be on the tax hook for it.

Exactly. I wonder if jAZ and his democrat friends have been refusing to accept the Bush tax cuts he's been eligible for on principle.

[patteeu]

Ah yes, the Ron Paul defense. Ear marks are good for me, just not for everyone. :p

Anyway, the fact that the Repubilcans who spent much of the last 8 years trashing Dems who objected to the value of Bush's tax cuts (and particularly the "stimulus" value no less) by telling them "tell ya what, you just keep paying your taxes if you want and I'll won't"... are now holding the opposite position when faced with a similar choice... says quite a lot about the non-sense that was spewed at the time.

I don't remember many Republicans saying that democrats betray their principles when they took advantage of those tax cuts though.

[Calcountry]

Republicans principles: Will they reject the stimulus money headed to their district?

Why should they refuse money to their districts? That has nothing to do with principles. If the money is being divvied out, their job is to get as much of it from the trough as they can for the people that they're representing.

Where principles come in is how they vote on it in the first place. They should vote against it. But once they do that, and it passes, there's nothing unprincipled about doing what you can to get your district's share. In fact, it would be unprincipled not to, considering that those people (and their children) will be on the tax hook for it.Exactly why I am going to get in line to get as big a share of that pork as possible and bleed that pig dry. Maybe then someone will wake up and understand that socialism sucks hard.

[jAZ]

You've got the defense skewed, but I'm not shocked that you're turning into the dishonest person that yesterday's Republicans were when they were in power.





Better yet, you admit that you're turning into the dishonest person that yesterday's Republicans were when they were in power.

Feel the change!
My suggestion that Repubilcans give the money back is non-sense. That's the point. It's not dishonest, it's sarcasm.

[Calcountry]

I don't remember many Republicans saying that democrats betray their principles when they took advantage of those tax cuts though.How come none of them Bush haters didn't give the money back?

[jAZ]

How come none of them Bush haters didn't give the money back?

Heh.

[Taco John]

You suck shit as a change agent Jaz.

[jAZ]

You suck shit as a change agent Jaz.

We are two peas from the same change agent pod.

[Iowanian]

Like Bush, Jaz is all hat and no cattle.

[jAZ]

Like Bush, Jaz is all hat and no cattle.

The only thing funny about this post, is that it comes from ChiefsPlanet's all time biggest internet tough guy. Classic.

ROFL

[trndobrd]

Im not sure if you are just trolling or if you really believe that a US rep can stand in front of moneys allocated by legislation and stop the flow of that money.


My guess is trolling since jAZ doesn't seem to have a handle on this idea of his president and party of choice being in power and having to lead and seems more concerned about finding a Republican boogey man under the bed.

Not that there is any legal authority for a U.S. Rep to call up a state treasurer and say "I'm not allowing you to take federal funds released by HB 1234", but I'm guessing the number will ultimately be the same as the number of Democrats who voted against various defense spend authorizations over the years and refused to allow defense contractors and military installations in their districts to receive federal dollars.

Just as a side note, as a percentage, how much 'stimulus' is going to the districts of Republicans against the bill vice the districts of Democrats in favor of the bill?

[Taco John]

We are two peas from the same change agent pod.

At least you admit that the change mantra was nothing more than a slogan to you. There are some fools who actually believe it meant something.

[jAZ]

At least you admit that the change mantra was nothing more than a slogan to you. There are some fools who actually believe it meant something.

I'll give you this much. Obama is a much greater man than I am and tasked with much more serious work. And I'm not the best supporter out there. Trying to *live* here on ChiefsPlanet what he's commited to trying to do in Washington is a challenge to and for me.

I often fail to lead by example. There is no doubt about that.

We are two peas in a pod because neither of us have ever approached our dialogue here in DC primarly with a concern about what others here feel about us. We talk from our heads and our hearts about what we see and believe. And while what people feel about us here changes from one discussion to the next... we haven't changed much in the last 8 years here. And we are definately both about the same before 11/4 as after.

I happed to be at a moment in my time here in CPDC where much of the history of the last 8 years is coming into into focus. There's probably a bit of an "i told you so" quality to some of my topics these days, but after the last 8 years (not only nationally, but personally here in DC), I'd say this falls into the "who can blame him" catagory. Much like how people excuse the tone of the snark and commentary about Carl Peterson that's come out in the last month now that it's over and we have the covers pull back a bit on the past.

I guess my point here is to not hide from your comment, that here in DC I suck as a change agent. That's true. And true for you as well, for the same underlying reasons, it seems.

I tried to do that 8 years ago and failed. So I guess I adapted to CP instead. The tone of my conduct outside of DC has always been different. And that's still true today.

As a final note, I'll just say that I think it's awesome that I'm not permitted to use snark in our discussions here without a firing squad lining up to assist in correcting me. That's definately pretty awesome.

[Iowanian]

The only thing funny about this post, is that it comes from ChiefsPlanet's all time biggest internet tough guy. Classic.

ROFL

Unfortunate fact to your ridiculous spasm, I do have cattle.

You've been having an online siezure since 1999, its about time to have the nurse wipe your ass and clean the drool off of yourself.
Its going to start being embarrassing to your family.

[ClevelandBronco]

They should vote against it, but they have no power to reject it.

[FishingRod]

I thought the Bush Stimulus checks were not a very good idea and that the country would probably have been better off had they never been sent. I did not return to sender. Probably the thing that would jump start the market more than anything else would be dramatically reducing taxes on capital gains. That might actually accomplish something.

[StcChief]

They should follow Claire McCaskill's lead. She promised to vote against a stimulus plan that included earmarks and pork. Chis Stigall has it on tape. :thumb:

if it passes. She better damn well get her cut for MO.

[jAZ]

Unfortunate fact to your ridiculous spasm, I do have cattle.
Yes, I'm sure.

http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/cow_riding.jpg

[Iowanian]

No need to share your honeymoon photos on a football message board.

Even the hard core libs think you're a nutjob.