As more governors declare their opposition to the Stimulus Bill — which is now estimated to include more than $1 trillion in unfunded mandates for the states above and beyond the initial $800 billion cost — more and more state legislators across the nation have been introducing bills to assert state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment in an effort to assert the rights of their citizens and the authoirity of state governments against unwarranted interference by the federal government.
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour and Idaho Governor Butch Otter stated their support for the position against the stimulus taken by Texas Governor Rick Perry and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford this week. Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska has been speaking publicly against the bill and when it passed her office issued a statement praising Alaska's congressional delegation for voting against it:
"Congressman Young and Senator Murkowski did their best to achieve the right balance in the bill, but in the end the majority allowed the spending to balloon and encompass support for programs that don't respond to the problem at hand."
Meanwhile, Governor Palin made the bizarrely optimistic suggestion that President Obama should Veto the bill to five lawmakers a chance to at least read the bill and specifically citing the problem for the states in the huge amount of unfunded mandates in the bill.
The push for state sovereignty laws has really gone nationwide. Texas has gotten on board with a bill submitted this week with six sponsors. It is basically the same as the Oklahoma resolution rather than the more radical New Hampshire resolution, which gives it a better chance of passage. Texas is a big state, and having it in the fight adds a lot of serious weight.
Although it is not yet confirmed on their legislature's website, the story is circulating that Tennessee is the first state to pass a sovereignty resolution through both of its legislative houses, in only 2 days from its introduction on Wednesday. Their version is a non-binding resolution which doesn't require the governor's signature or have the force of law, but it is a significant statement nonetheless.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Baritone
I call dibs on all the money the states refuse from the stimulus funds.
B
2 - Dave Nalle
Sounds like a deal, Bari, if you also accept the roughly 5x as much money in unfunded obligations to pay out over the next decade.
Dave
3 - Arch Conservative
The latest and greatest regarding the stimulus bill saga comes from Representative James Clyburn of SC who claims that the opposition coming from governors in the South is based on racism.
Isn't that nice...........a racist calling others racist........
4 - Hal
Add Kansas to the list. Our bill was introduced last week :)
5 - Dave Nalle
Good news from Kansas.
As for Clyburn, he's up for reelection in 2010. I think the clearest possible message could be sent by mobilizing forces and money nationwide to defeat him.
Dave
6 - BlueBonnie
I have seen alot of people post in forums saying that the districts whose politicians voted against the stimulus should also not get any money since they voted against. If that is the case, then why should they have to put any funding into the stimulus? Sounds like libs are approving the idea of the Fed government punishing the states and their politicians for a no vote by taking their taxpayers money but not providing any of the so called "stimulus". Is this what the libs actually support?
7 - Dave Nalle
Ever been to Democratic Underground or HuffPo? Pettiness, spite and vengefulness are at the heart of the left's current mindset.
Dave
8 - Owen Davis
I have written to my state senator, state representative, and the Lt. Governor (who holds the most powerful position in Texas politics) urging them to support H.R.C. No. 50, which affirms and asserts State Sovereignty on behalf of all Texans. I urge everyone in every state to likewise urge their state legislature to do the same. Following is the text of my comments:
I urge you to add your full support to H.C.R. No. 50, which would affirm and assert the Sovereignty of the State of Texas under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. The massive economic problems facing the United States, the fatally flawed solutions being forced upon the populace by the Federal government, and the obvious failure of the Federal government to limit its role in public life in accordance with the Bill of Rights demand a response from the Sovereign States. Texas ought to be and must be a leader in this movement. We have all heard the phrase,
"too big to fail" applied to the banking behemoths of America. The same thinking is now being applied to the Federal government, and it will lead us inevitably to despotism unless we reverse course. We must return to a Jeffersonian vision of a democratic republic, with limited powers vested in the Federal government, and Sovereign State governments providing a bulwark of protection against Federal intrusion in every aspect of the lives of its citizens.
Thank you for you consideration.
9 - bruce
it's about time that the states tell the over bearing commie controlled govt. to go pound sand.
10 - Dave Nalle
If anyone can make a stand, it's Texas. Keep working on them.
Dave
11 - Roger Nowosielski
I think Constitutional Convention would be a more viable idea - brought up on another thread.
12 - Cindy
Jindal, Barbour and probably others are turning down 100 million for emergency extended unemployment benefits for citizens of those fine states.
What clowns...
13 - Cindy
They're either turning it down...or making it so the unemployed can't get it.
With the extra time the unemployed have on their hands maybe they will revolt and physically remove these clowns from office.
14 - Roger Nowosielski
They just don't give a shit about the poor. It's like that in most of those f ...g states - KY being one.
15 - Cindy
I'm reading that Jindal might be seeking the presidency next round. speculation is it might be some sort of political move on his part.
So, everyone can starve because this guy wants to make a political statement to business.
Dave,
This idea of basing everything on greed would be really amusing if it wasn't so disgusting.
16 - Dave Nalle
Cindy, are you sure you're an anarchist? You sure seem to like the idea of a nanny state. Federal money brings with it federal interference.
The truth is that these states would rather take care of their own problems in their own way rather than have the federal government dictate to them programs they don't need and expenses they can't afford.
It's not going to mean people starving and it's not about greed or not caring about the poor. It's about protecting the people from a federal government which is grossly out of control.
Jindal and Sanford and Barbour would rather not see more of their citizens - many of whom live on relatively low incomes - driven into poverty by having to raise taxes and expand the tax base. As I've said before, it comes down to whether you'd like to see more poor people who are slightly better off or fewer poor people overall.
Dave
17 - Ma rk
Handling things properly, creative Governors even might be able to drive some of those poor fuckers out of their States. We call that 'upward mobility'.
18 - Roger Nowosielski
I have to disagree here. It is federal government that offers protection and freedom to its citizens, not the states. Examples abound:
Brown v Board of Education
Roe v Wade
The Civil Rights Act
If we waited for the states, some of that legislation might still be in limbo.
The states have no interest in the poorest or the poor; they'd be just as happy to get rid of them or ship them elsewhere - like to California. (They'll even pay you a one-way ticket just to get rid of you).
The poor are only a burden to local governments; there are no property taxes to collected from the poor, no revenues to draw upon - only an obligation.
So let's call a spade a spade.
19 - Cindy
Dave,
I like the idea of people eating.
I find your analysis to be that of someone who is safe and employed and doesn't really understand what,
"I don't have enough money to live in my house anymore." means.
Jindal's argument that the unemployment money would result in raising the tax base was specious if you also read the criticism.
He didn't even clearly explain that. What does he mean? The only thing I can surmise is that employers would have a higher contribution rate to the unemployment fund. Is there something I'm missing? Because if that is all he means, that is insignificant.
There are going to be a lot of unemployed people who have no hope of getting work.
20 - Cindy
Dave,
Please explain Jindal's argument to me re: taking the money = raising the tax base.
21 - Roger Nowosielski
Exactly the point I'm making, Mark. But of course people like Dave talk of "nanny state, "federal interference," and "state rights" - anything but to shove things under the carpet and pretending the problem doesn't exist.
I certainly consider myself lucky that, as an American, I can look beyond the jurisdiction of backwards states like KY or Texas and their skewed sense of justice.
22 - Clavos
Too bad the federal government won't just give the money back (for that's what it is -- our taxes being returned) with no strings, since it was our money to begin with.
But they won't; they're maneuvering to control the state governments even more than they already do, so strings aplenty are being attached.
It's a Washington power play, they don't really give a damn about the poor or anyone else; all they're really after is increasing their power.
They don't give (back) money without exacting something in return.
And my governor has his nose so far up Washington's collective ass he's hyperventilating.
23 - Roger Nowosielski
I wasn't addressing the corrupted bureaucracies - state or federal - only protection under the law.
24 - Dave Nalle
Cindy, I haven't had a chance to watch or read Jindal's response yet. I had a meeting at the time and missed it when it aired last night. And don't think I'm a big Jindal fan, he just happens to be on the right side of this particular issue.
Also, I know perfectly well what it means to be at risk of losing your home. I have relatives who have lost a home to foreclosure and have certainly had times where I fell behind on my rent and housing was in peril.
Roger, it is the states which provide unemployment coverage and which provide most forms of welfare. The feds may handle some of the money, but the administration of these programs is in the hands of the states. They employ the workers who know what the needs of people in their state are and who are best qualified to make decisions about the welfare of the people in that state. That's why the responsibility is delegated to the states.
What you all seem not to grasp is the basic problem that this unemployment expansion will ultimately end up being paid for by the states, not the federal government and they feel they can't afford it.
Dave
25 - Roger Nowosielski
Thanks for clarifying this to me. So you're saying, then, that the feds are simply shoving off the burden. Doesn't the stimulus package provide enough moneys for the unemployment extension?