The reasons here are the very definition of straightforward: governors are in the line of fire, responsible for keeping their states afloat. Representatives are not. Thus, for reasons of pure political self-preservation, Republican governors act responsibly, in this instance, while Republican representatives act like... Republicans:
Not a single Republican voted with the majority last week when the House approved Obama's $819 billion combination of tax cuts and new spending....
But states are coping with severe budget shortfalls and mounting costs for Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor. So governors, including most Republicans, are counting on the spending to help keep their states afloat.
This past week the bipartisan National Governors Association called on Congress to quickly pass the plan.
"States are facing fiscal conditions not seen since the Great Depression - anticipated budget shortfalls are expected in excess of $200 billion," the NGA statement said. "Governors ... support several key elements of the bill critical to states-increased federal support for Medicaid and K-12 and higher education; investment in the nation's infrastructure; and tax provisions to spur investment."
Of course, the Club for Growth and other economic death cults are just laying in wait for errant Republicans, so the governors have a balancing act to perform. Just in case their any doubt about the situational ethics involved, consider the following:
That's not to say Republican governors are entirely enthusiastic about the plan. Some worry about the debt incurred through so much federal borrowing.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a former member of the House, said he would accept the stimulus money but would have voted against the bill if he were still in Congress.
Refreshingly honest hypocrisy, no? He was against the stimulus package while he was for it!
The story continues:
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, said he wasn't sure whether he would accept the approximately $3 billion his state would be in line for.
"Yes, we need some help and we appreciate the help," Barbour said in an interview. "But I don't know about the details and the strings attached to tell you if I'll take all of it or not."
The most outspoken critic has been South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who has warned for months of a steep spike in inflation and a severely weakened dollar if Obama's plan passed. His state is on track to receive $2.1 billion of the stimulus money; Sanford has not yet said whether he would accept it.
In an interview I did a while back with a staffer at the National Conference of State Legislators, I was told that Sanford is on his own on this. The South Carolina legislators do not have his back on this one.
The story goes on to say that Sanford "has been disappointed in how few of his GOP colleagues have joined him in speaking out against the size and scope of Obama's plan."
Sanford is chair of the Republican Governors Association, so there's leadership for you.
Another narrative that could be pushed this week is how House Republicans have done a 180 on their old favorite complaint about the federal government saddling state governments with "unfunded mandates." Here are the Democrats taking all sorts of pot-shots from GOP representatives lambasting them for, among other things, funneling well over a hundred billion dollars to the states to help keep them afloat.
But, of course, not only would this require that the Democrats show some kind of brain activity to get out there and actively push this narrative. It would also require the Versailles media to give a damn about mere state governments.
Yeah, right.
Still, they pretended to care when the GOP was pushing the "unfunded mandates" routine. So it's not that far-fetched. |
