Clyburn cleverly inserts 45 day limit for Govs to spend stimulus $ - will expose hypocritical Repubs

[TeamJordan23]

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.

The genesis of the provision: House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn's war with Sanford over the stimulus.

"Our governor has repeatedly expressed political and philosophical aversion to using federal assistance as we work our way out of the economic conditions that are visiting significant difficulties upon businesses and families throughout our beloved state," Clyburn said after the House vote.

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

[grannie4peace]

1. very smart...i would never survive. i can't play chess either!

:shrug:

[tekisui]

2. I love it! Walk the talk, or sink your state!

It's a win/win/win for the Dems!

[n2doc]

3. They won't have a problem taking the money

Repubs never have a problem spending money. They just like to complain about it in a sanctimonious manner. They have no honor and no shame.

[ClarkUSA]

4. I will K&R despite some people's erroneous insistence that Politico is not a good info source.

[wroberts189]

5. And if only we had a MS MEDIA to trumpet it all.

Keith ..Rachel ..you out there ?

[Numba6]

6. Clyburn is helping Obama for 2012 to set up Sanford if he runs for Prez

You can bet your bottom dollar the GOP candidate will come from the ranks of the GOP govs in 2012, IMHO -- definitely no one who's now in DC

[rvablue]

7. Ah! Good point. The nutters have been gabbing about Sanford for 2012.

So this is an excellent strategy.

If the Gov. does take the money and decides to run, how can he bitch about it later.

And if the Gov. doesn't take the money and decides to run, and the plan works, but SC is one of the few states that continues to tank and/or stagnate, he won't be able to bitch about it either, but he also won't be able to take zero credit in any of it.

[izquierdista]

8. Gov. Tongue-tied??

I thought his career was over when he stammered for a full minute to come up with a Repub talking point. Anyone have the YouTube link on that?

[elizm]

19. You mean this idiot???

My governor by the way...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryPQJr1i9J8&eurl=http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/whoops_goper_on_mccains_veep_l.php

[harun]

9. Brilliant.

A sh*t or get off the pot clause.

Plenty of Blue states (who need the money) will be glad to take their share if they refuse it.

[firedupdem]

10. Great..... n/t

[Vinca]

11. A real stroke of genius since Republicans never turn down money. nt

[Tatiana]

12. I love it when the Dems engage in good strategery! n/t

[4lbs]

13. This could be a double-edged sword.

My father used to work for the government at a Naval Air Repair Facility (NARF) during the 1980s megaexpansion of defense spending under the Reagan Administration.

He told me that with that increase in defense spending, the NARF got millions of dollars more than it needed. However, budgetary wrinkles required them to spend all that money or else lose it in next year's budget. So, if the NARF got $100 million and only spent $75 million, next time it would only get $75 million, because some D.C. bean counter determined that was all they needed.

In any case, with this "forced" spending, they wound up spending it inefficiently just to make sure they didn't lose funds the next time.

On perfectly good planes and helicopters, they would literally have workers perform work that had already been done weeks before and not needed for another year. For example, hydraulics or coverings that were serviced, were serviced again.

In addition, the NARF ended up buying more equipment than was necessary or would ever be needed for the next 10 years. This extra equipment just wound up sitting in a warehouse for about 20 years before it was 'trashed' due to obsolesence.

So, the 45-day spending limit is good, as long as they make sure that these Governors actually spend the money on job-creating projects that can start "right now".

[themaguffin]

16. that's true, but i think they simply need allocate spending, not actually spend it

i could be wrong though

[4lbs]

17. Yeah. Then make sure they allocate the money for the truly shovel-ready projects than can get

started within a month.

[Hieronymus]

14. Brilliant .. I love it.

[grantcart]

15. "I was against the stimulus before I took the cash"

[Danascot]

18. 45 days is the blink of an eye for government

I worked with New York State government and they wouldn't be able to procure a copy machine in that time.

In the past New York has actually had to return federal funds unspent because they weren't able to spend them in the year or two years timeframe they had to do it in.

[RepublicanElephant]

20. Jim Clyburn...

:yourock:

[Laelth]

21. Nice. k&r

The United States is a LIBERAL Country.

:dem:

-Laelth