Congress to governors: Use it or lose it-A devilishly clever last-minute insert to the House version

[kpete]

Source: Politico

February 13, 2009
Categories: States
Congress to governors: Use it or lose it

A devilishly clever last-minute insert to the House version of the stimulus bill has made it through the conference report -- a requirement that governors spend their stimulus allocations within 45 days.

The provision isn't likely to have a real-world impact, but it forces Republican governors who opposed the stimulus (e.g. South Carolina's Mark Sanford) and many other GOP governors who sat on the fence for fear of bucking their party -- to publicly accept or decline the aid.

And when they do accept it -- and it's hard to see a scenario where they wouldn't given their deficits -- Democrats get to call them craven or hypocritical or both.

In the unlikely event they do reject the money, authority for spending the cash would revert to State legislatures, who would likely be under even more political pressure to spend it than chief executives.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0209/Congress_to_governors_Use_it_or_lose_it.html

[mac56]

1. Brill!

:rofl:

[surrealAmerican]

2. I like it!

[global1]

3. A Couple Of Observations......

1. If one wants the 'stimulus plan' to have a relatively quick impact - isn't this a good thing?

2. Maybe too quick though. I would hate to have Governors make hasty decisions about how to spend this money and not think them through. I would want them to get maximum 'job creation' bang for the buck and if they have to rush to spend this money - maybe some of it would go to projects that might not help the long term creation of jobs. Perhaps they should have given them more than 45 days.

3. The suggestion that this was put in for 'political/partisan purposes' puts a negative connotation on it. I would like to determine if this is just Politico's interpretation of this clause or if this really was the reason that the 45 day limit - use it/lose it - was put in.

[pasto76]

8. Most states have a backlog of projects that have lingered for years

hard to imagine they cant prioritize them in a month.

[JDPriestly]

15. According to the L.A. Times, California's share won't begin to

cover the deficit, so California will still have to cut programs even thought Schwarzenegger will probably accept the money, and our legislature will absolutely grab it.

[rurallib]

4. if some states governors reject the money they ought to

take that money and divide it among those who will take the money. If the 21 or so Repug govs want to reject it, give it to the states that will take it. (I know mine will, so I can say this)

[nykym]

13. From the last line in the original post

In the unlikely event they do reject the money, authority for spending the cash would revert to State legislatures, who would likely be under even more political pressure to spend it than chief executives.

Ca-ching!

[No Elephants]

5. With all due respect, that should have been in the plan from the jump. It is not

all that "clever." To me, it seems more like....duhhhhh!!!


I've been saying for weeks.



You gave banks money with no requirement that they lend it;

Don't give states money with no requirement that they spend it.


But, I would have required that spending start within 90 days and conclude within X amount of time, or something like that. Otherwise, you risk foolish or ill-concived spending.

I would also give guidelines on what it can and cannot be spent on.

[librechik]

14. a lot of the good stuff we have to wait to the last minute to spring on them

otherwise they would raise a big stink and we might have to pull it.

Kinda like they used to do to us, only not as cruel.

[Jefferson23]

6. Good move, put the Rethuglican party that has NO answers on the defense

[Xolodno]

7. I'm Sure..

The moderate Republican Gov's would be more than happy to take it off their hands if they don't want it. That high speed rail line from San Diego to Sacramento I'm sure could be built much quicker with the monies refused by say Arizona? I'm sure if we take Texas's share we could have desalinization plants in no time!

[Uben]

9. California doesn't need our money

They got Ahhhnold!

[JDPriestly]

16. The Terminator was not able to terminate California's budget deficit.

When he took office, the Terminator promised to review all state expenditures and end wasteful spending. Unfortunately, he was not able to find much, if any, wasteful spending.

Hopefully, next time around, Democrats will run a strong candidate and put some sanity back in Sacramento.

[Taverner]

10. Although I thought most GOP Gov's supported the stimulus?

I may be wrong though...

[mac56]

11. Most GOP Govs supported it, in direct contrast to their Congressional counterparts.

That's the brilliance of it.

[Taverner]

12. If the GOP govs are smart

They'll use this as a chance to say they are "mavericks" and "broke party ranks" to work with our President

In 2010 that might be their best strategy

[TrogL]

17. How in hell can you build most infrastructure in 45 days?

We've got one happening here that's been up over a year.

[foxfeet]

18. Most states have a backlog of infrastructure projects awaiting funding.

The projects don't have to be completed in 45 days, but the funding will be designated within that time frame by each state according to its needs.

[TrogL]

19. but that's not "spent"

...and the project I'm talking about is 100% overbudget (nobody's fault). Are they going to cost overruns?

[foxfeet]

21. I understand "spent" to refer to applying funding to projects already planned.

The idea is to avoid having the money just put in some sort of "general fund" that doesn't directly stimulate jobs. I certainly could be wrong here, but I don't believe the whole wad has to be exhausted within the time limit. Do you have a different take?

[ieoeja]

20. Governors, not the State, gets the money?

If the Governor does not spend it within 45 days, then authority for spending it goes to the State Legislature.

That money should be handed over to the State Legislature in the first place. Why in the world would we give it to the Governor to spend as s/he solely sees fit?

I sure hope we put some limitations on what the Governors can spend it on. On the face of it this reads as though we just donated billions of dollars to each of 50 Governors. Take the money, pay the gift tax on it, and they're home free.

Sure, they would never get elected to office again. But who needs that when you've got 10 billion dollars in the bank all nice and legal?

There must be details I am not seeing here.