Will GOP Governors Follow Jindal’s Lead?
Amid rumors that Republican Governors Barbour, Sanford, Perry, Otter and Palin will decline portions of the stimulus package intended for their states, Republican Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal became the first to officially announce his intentions to say no.
Mr. Jindal cited his concerns regarding potential burdens caused by the expanding of unemployment compensation benefits to people who do not normally qualify for help. The governor is fearful that employers will endure a higher tax burden down the road when federal assistance involving unemployment benefits runs out. His objection to the provision is shared by the pro-business lobbying organization, Louisiana Association of Business and Industry.
“The federal money in this bill will run out in less than three years for this benefit and our businesses would then be stuck paying the bill,” explained Jindal.
Gov. Jindal does support several aspects of the plan including the raising of unemployment benefits by $25 through 2010 and a $430 million infrastructure investment targeted for Louisiana.
A similar concern involving future tax burdens is held by neighboring state Governor, Haley Barbour of Mississippi. Mr. Barbour may be obliged to go along with investment designations for his state’s troubled education system. Services, including education, have suffered in Mississippi since Gov. Barbour slashed funding to all state agencies by 3.2 percent due to the recession.
Sighting similar fears and overall issues with the size and scope of the package, Governors Mark Sanford (SC), Rick Perry (TX), Butch Otter (ID) and former Vice Presidential Nominee Sarah Palin (AK) have all stated their general opposition to the package because of a belief that it will expand government and further grow the country’s debt.
If the GOP wants to present itself as the truly fiscal responsible party, its governors have to say no to this ridiculous plan. Of course that may cost them some support at home, especially if the states’ citizens see other states profiteering from federal aid. Then again, these states probably are quite conservative.
“If the GOP wants to present itself as the truly fiscal responsible party…..”
With all due respect, Michael, given the Republicans shameful record during the last eight years, sending spending and deficits to records undreamt of just a few years ago, how can anyone even talk about them as the “truly fiscal responsible party”? Throwing aside campaign rhetoric (and most of that decades old), just what qualifies the Republican Party as fiscally responsible?
And don’t try to define “fiscally responsible” by comparing them to the Democrats —they deserve more than their share of the blame. But how, objectively, does the record of the Republican Party over the last eight years (or last 28) permit them to even hint at bearing the mantle of fiscal restraint and prudence?