Liberals are unhappy that Gov. Rick Perry has made the correct, long term, decision
Many Liberals are fans of centralized power - at least politicians that I can readily identify as Liberals seem to pontificate that only Government can solve the problem. Often, that means we, the people, have to give something up of our money, our freedom, our choices. And when we complain, or a politician stands up against the Libs on a principled stand, let the excoriation begin!
Such is what Dean Barker has done over at Blue Hampshire:
Unconscionable
He's really doing it (h/t TPM):Gov. Rick Perry will announce today that he is blocking the state from accepting $550 million for expanded unemployment benefits as part of the federal stimulus packageI didn't think it was possible for the other side to act in ways that one could argue are actually worse than George W. Bush's record, but I think this really goes there.
If this half-man ever steps foot into our state with his presidential ambitions in tow, I hope we will emphatically remind him of this moment.
And if you're interested in an historical perspective on just how knuckle-draggingly immoral Perry's decision is, put it up against the Styles Bridges Anti-Stimulus Measuring Stick.
I'm not intentionally picking on BH but this is the second time in two days. What Dean doesn't elaborate in his post is the WHY. He simply tries to paint the picture "oh, such a BAD man for not helping out his fellow man. Why, he's actually refusing money!". In short, he's making nothing more than an emotional appeal WITHOUT going into the real reasons as to why Gov. Perry said "no". Libs do that a lot - play the emotion card to make the opposition look bad. So, I'll play along (for a moment) and do so as well!
Hey Dean, does this mean you never say "No" to your kids - even if they really, really want something - especially if it is Grandma trying to give them something you know they might like now but isn't so good for them later on?
No, I didn't think so - you WOULD do the principled thing and say the right thing: "No".
And so is Gov. Perry...
- Has to change its laws to cover those that ordinarily would not be covered.
- Change its laws such that this extra cost will continue after the Federal money runs out.
In Gov. Perry's own words:
But he said the requirements attached to the federal stimulus money would require a change in the state's definition of unemployment, expanding coverage to more people and placing more of the state's tax burden on employers.
"During these tough times, Texas employers are working harder than ever to move products to market, make payroll and create jobs," Perry said at a news conference. "The last thing they need is government burdening them with higher taxes and expanded obligations."
Perry said such an expansion would counteract the package's objective of job creation by leading companies to limit hiring and raise prices.
In effect, this is the Feds acting contrary to the Constitution - what right does the Fed have to tell the States to do so? Should a Governor allow the Feds to tell the state what to do? Shouldn't a Governor be able to tell the Feds that it is over stepping its bounds?
My thoughts:
- The States, to a large degree, have brought this on themselves by accepting prior bribe money for changing their behavior (e.g., NH accepting a paltry $3.7 million for enacting a mandatory seat belt law - a bowl of porridge to legislate adults behavior as if they were little children?)
- If the Feds are truly just wishing to help people, why the strings? Why not just give the States the money? Why MUST there be other than an altruistic gesture by the Democrat controlled Government?
- Given that, why must the States continue the expanded coverage AFTER the money is gone - why should the States give in to an unfunded mandate? Why not just during the time that the Feds are willing to fork over the cash?
- Unless the intention is to further an Imperial Federal Government (with an exalted President as a faux monarch), why are the Feds demanding that States HAVE to change their laws to spend more?
- Why is Representative Clyburn pulling out the race card to bat Gov. Perry around (i.e., not accepting the money is racist??? C'mon!)) - again, a simple emotional appeal not based on logic, reasoning, or law.
It's sort of the reverse of the Big Stick (the tax code); this, too, is a way to acquire and exercise control. However, instead of people and companies (with the tax code), this is to control the States. Money from the Feds is NEVER free - there are always obligations and "pay back". In this case, the Feds are out to make the States to be mere extenstions of the Feds (think figureheads).
Think I'm kidding? Then tell me why many of the banks that took the TARP money are desperately trying to give it back - they find the terms and political bashing too onerous to bear. It seems that the private sector, once again, is smarter than our political class.
NOW, add the words from a DEMOCRAT GOVERNOR (Rendell from PA):
But if you're extending coverage to new categories of recipients, the states have to step up and give matching funds. And what Governor Sanford and Governor Perry are saying is, 'that's a mandate and we don't have the extra money, and I'm not going to burden my citizens with doing that, because in a couple of years, the stimulus money is going to go away, and we're going to be left holding the bag.' There is at least a fiscal reality to that argument
Remember, "Free" never is - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch - and the Feds will ALWAYS extract their pound of flesh both from the giver and the receiver.
