Jackson Free Press

Gov. Haley Barbour reportedly renewed his criticism of the Obama administration's economic bailout package during the National Governors Association winter meeting in Washington, D.C. this past weekend.

The $787 billion package, with $144 billion available for state and local fiscal relief, is dividing Republican governors, with nearly all of those critical of the package in the South, according to The New York Times.

Several Republican governors are accepting the federal aid, including California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said Sunday that Republicans in his state opposing the bill "were not in touch with what the majority of people want to do in California." Speaking on ABC's "This Week," Schwarzenegger said the same holds true nationwide.

"Even though it is against your principles or philosophy," he said he believed that officeholders should be doing "what the people want you to do rather than getting stuck in your ideology," reported the New York Times.

Are Republican governors opposing the bill for purely political reasons?

Several governors, nearly all of them Southerners known to have national ambitions, have been withering in their criticism of Mr. Obama's stimulus plan, which received only 3 of 219 Republicans' votes in Congress. The harshest critics include Mr. Sanford and Govs. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Haley Barbour of Mississippi, the national chairman of the party in the 1990s, Rick Perry of Texas, and Sarah Palin of Alaska, the party's 2008 vice-presidential nominee.

Clearly, Barbour has his own political future in mind in opposing the Obama administration:

"The last time Republicans made a comeback, it was led by Republican governors," Mr. Barbour, of Mississippi, said in an interview, referring to the mid-1990s when Republicans captured control of both chambers of Congress for the first time in 40 years.

"Now we have to take that same approach, take our values and principles," he said, and "tie them to the new issue set that we have to deal with" amid the recession.

"There is some (money) we will not take in Mississippi. ... We want more jobs. You don't get more jobs by putting an extra tax on creating jobs," Barbour told CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, another 2012 Republican presidential prospect, according to the Times, seems to be casting about for middle ground, saying that the GOP needs to adhere to its principles, but in a more palatable way if expects to appeal to those outside the party faithful.

"We've become too petty and angry in many aspects," he said. "That's unappealing to swing voters."

Previous Commentsshow

Schwarzenegger will put the people of California ahead of Republican ideology. Schwarzenegger can not run for president in 2012. Barbour will put Republican ideology ahead of the people of Mississippi. Barbour can run for president in 2012. And there are still those who deny it's all about politics?

chaffeur

Feb 23 2009

Maybe it is time to reread this article. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/08/impeach-haley-b.html

blkjazz

Feb 23 2009

This is all so political. Question: Even though he is refusing part of the package, can the MS Legislature still request those funds outside of the governor's office? Question: Are we not as taxpayers, still liable for the entire package, even though the state refused a portion of the funds? Is this not full taxation for only partial benefits.

lanier77

Feb 23 2009

Schwarzenegger will put the people of California ahead of Republican ideology. Schwarzenegger can not run for president in 2012. Plus, California can hold recall elections on their elected officials, so he almost has no choice.

golden eagle

Feb 23 2009

Lanier77, my understanding is that the legislature can override Barbour's decision. See Governors Can Reject Obama Stimulus Money, but State Legislatures Can Thwart Them [s]tate governors must within 45 days of the bill being enacted certify that the state will request and use the funds, and that "the funds will be used to create jobs and promote economic growth." So it is the governor's call. But if the governor does not accept the money, then the state legislature can accept the cash "by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution."

Ronni_Mott

Feb 23 2009

As to your second question, Lanier, if there's an increase in federal taxes because of the stimulous funds, we're not immune because Mississippi doesn't claim a piece. Funds specifically targeted to help the states represent about 18 percent of the total. See the White House Recovery.gov for more info.

Ronni_Mott

Feb 23 2009

Don't worry. President Obama has already thought through this one. The cities and towns will be able to go through the mayors and legislators to get the money. They can bypass the Wizzards of OZ. The only thing that the Governors of these "want to be sovereign states" do is to look STUPID, OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY and possess a guaranty that they will be defeated in their next run for re-election. Since MS has Gov. time limits, Barbour's only shot will be his attempt to run for President. This will truly be a BIG JOKE!

justjess

Feb 23 2009

"No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.” --H.L. Mencken

Ronni_Mott

Feb 23 2009

What we need to do is impeached this pot belly fool that we call govenor. If he can't work for the people of Mississippi then he need to go!!! Barbour run for President? We need to do is start calling him what he really is Hitler Jr. a pure breed fool who thinks he can get slavery back in Mississippi. Somebody needs to stimulus his butt and bring him back to the real world. Remember it's was the Rebulicans that got this country in this mess in the first place and Barbour was right with them.

Tony Davis

Feb 23 2009

This is a good summary of the issues in the LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik23-2009feb23,0,159737.column

FreeClif

Feb 23 2009

The L.A. Times piece seems to be hitting the nail on the head, Whitley. Here are a few quotes: Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour's spokesman griped to the Associated Press that accepting money to enhance unemployment benefits might force his state "to pay benefits to people who wouldn't meet state requirements to receive them." Barbour presumably expects us to defer to his judgment because Mississippi is so nationally famous for its generosity to the downtrodden. ... The proper approach to these complaints is to tune them out, because they merely represent political opportunism run wild. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) more or less defined the form when he carried on on CNN about how the stimulus package was a "slush fund for states" and "worse than nothing" and designed to "help a bunch of politicians." Then, asked if his state should accept the money, he said of course it should: "You don't want to be crazy here." Read it all here.

Ronni_Mott

Feb 23 2009

Personally, I just love Barbour's quote about tying Republican "values and principles" to "the new issue set." It's all sounds so sterile and euphemistic until you know the "issue set" is millions of unemployed Americans, and millions more who have lost their ability to ever retire. The majority of American voters rejected Republican "values and principles" in the last election, maybe because they were finally seeing that there's nothing of substance behind the wizard's curtain. The same tired economic strategy of the past will not serve to get us out of the hole we've dug with it. Maybe the Republicans should explore why their message is becoming more and more irrelevant as the economic mess deepens by the day.

Ronni_Mott

Feb 23 2009

My thought was kinda funny: You don't want to BE crazy, just act crazy for the base?

FreeClif

Feb 23 2009

Tony, The last thing I want to think about is how to stimulate Barbour's butt. But was totally okay with the spending spree and tax cuts the nation endured for the past 8 years and now they want to become fiscal conservatives? Hell yeah! You tell it Baquan!! I am with you there. The latest incarnation of the Repubs are anything but fiscally conservative. They are grandstanding for political points and counting on the short attention span of Americans to hope this could work for them in the next elections. I wish I could get my hands on some of what they are smoking if they think that kind of strategy will work anytime in the near future.

WMartin

Feb 23 2009

Ronni, I used to identify with Republicans on a lot of their "values and principles" such as a more limited role for government and fiscal responsibility. They have abandoned those values and principles if they ever really held them. Their main problem, in my opinion, is what they say and what they do are two different things. The Republicans used to make a lot of noise about President Clinton's lack of core beliefs, well isn't it funny how those chickens have come home to roost. I think a lot of reasonable people threw up their hands with the Republican lip service and voted Democrat this last election because of these reasons. Their (Republican) credibility is shot on matters of economics at the moment and could be for a generation.

WMartin

Feb 23 2009

Baquan: Jindal's not asian. What are you complaining about?

Ironghost

Feb 23 2009

Iron, Last time I checked India was in Asia.

WMartin

Feb 23 2009

Baquan, I agree in substance with what you are saying. Republicans have a serious problem with double standards I have never been quite able to figure out. But they seem to have no problem reconciling the duality of their nature. Like, A rich christian should be an oxymoron. How can they be pro-life and pro-death penalty? Why should the government be limited in what they regulate in business but not what it regulates in the bedroom? And it goes on and on as they mix their Pseudo-religious morality with public policy.

WMartin

Feb 23 2009

Wouldn't it be just appropriate to call him an American, that's probably what he prefers since he was born in America. I'm not sure how he choses to relate to his ethnic heritage. But if he runs for president, I'm sure he learn some new things about his America.

lanier77

Feb 23 2009

I went to an integrated church breakfast on Sunday attended by members of a predominantly white church and a predominantly African American church. I must look like an Obama supporter because a couple of gentlemen from the white church immediately began to complain about Obama's recovery bill. One complained about an unnecessary sidewalk planned for some town in Alabama while the other said we could give every adult a million dollars with the money in the recovery plan. He said, why don't we give the money to citizens and just let them spend it. I pointed out that this could not be true, that it would equate to over 100 trillion dollars which would not be feasible! He said he heard that on the radio. I told him not to believe what he hears on the radio. I was nice about it and so was he and he was smiling when I left. We have to work on them one Kool-Aid drinker at a time!

FreeClif

Feb 23 2009

As is my habit, I was being conservative with the number I gave him. I just googled the adult population and the latest figure is 218 million adults. The official Wingnut Recovery Plan would cost 218 trillion dollars. That is a lot of wars for non-existent weapons of mass destruction and Alaskan Bridges to Nowhere. Thanks, but no thanks.

FreeClif

Feb 23 2009

OK, You should not go by the number of adults but by the number of households. And the give away should be around $20,000/household. This would more than compute and would probably spur a great deal of recovery. Certainly would look better than the stock market which evidentally does NOT like Obama's plan.

Razor

Feb 23 2009

How many times will Mississippi cut its nose off to spite its face? I honestly believe that all this opposition to the economic stimulus plan is just grandstanding. I bet if John McCain were president and was providing this kind of stimulus, they'd be all over themselves for it.

golden eagle

Feb 23 2009

baquan: Your attitude is peculiar in respect to races. You've demanded respect while showing none to any. WMartin: Geographically, possibly. Culturally? Hardly. :) GE: I take it you're a fan of unfunded mandates?

Ironghost

Feb 23 2009

Even if you go by the number of households, which is not what they were saying, it would still be stupid. There was only a $1.03 of economic activity generated per dollar of the tax rebates last year; whereas, research shows that you get much more bang for the buck the way the recovery plan is funded. For instance, you get $1.76 in economic activity for every dollar invested in education. The stock market has been going down for the last six months due to mistakes made over the last eight years. Is it very smart to try to say its a referendum on Obama's plans? The stock market is going down because the two biggest banks, Citigroup and Bank of America are essentially insolvent and there is great uncertainty worldwide. If they collapse, then what? What is being mandated in the recovery plan without funding?

FreeClif

Feb 23 2009

The facts are the same Mississippi needs help and when someone is trying to help us we need to accept this gift in ordr to improve the lives of our citizens in Mississippi. Barbour, has no ideal what he common people are going through all he cares about is his image which I might add looks like a dodo bird! Maybe if he would have made sure everyone was treated right when he was approving contracts for restoration of the Gulf Coastthen some of that money could have been spreaded throughout Mississippi instead to his family and friends and out of State Companies. We need to cover him with super glue and hope some common sense stick to his crusty butt!!!

Tony Davis

Feb 23 2009

Barbour, a huge fan of pork, is clearly playing partisan politics, and this is the wrong time. This is as backward to do in today's climate as that redneck senator in Alabama questioning the president's citizenship. These guys are holding onto the past, and living in denial. Remember, both Barbour and Wicker attacked Musgrove for saying he would oppose earmarks. And they went against the McCain-Palin mantra to do so (of course, so did she, but let's not go down that road of idiocy again). Barbour, et al, believe Mississippians are stupid. This is not going to benefit them in the long run. And this sure isn't the right year to start talking about Republicans "values" -- not even in this state. And Barbour is old Republican guard, and tied directly to the Bushes, Delays and Abramoffs of the world. I'll be so glad when we cycle through these guys and find new Republicans to take their places.

DonnaLadd

Feb 23 2009

The moderates in the GOP like Crist, Schwarzenegger, Collins, Snowe and Specter do not seem to get any respect within the GOP mainstream. Jindal was criticizing 300 million dollars of spending in the bill on cars for federal government agencies. That is less than 4/10 of one percent of the bill and will help bolster a crucial industry. Government employees do probably drive cars. Hopefully they will be fuel efficient. This chart lends some perspective: http://www.wapt.com/president-obama/18702558/detail.html The Republicans named above are probably doing what makes good sense given the electorate in their states. If the GOP cannot make ideological room for those types, then they may solidify themselves as a regional party.

FreeClif

Feb 23 2009

Whitley: Since I'm behind in reading that monolithic bill, all I can offer so far is what I've heard argued in the media: the unemployement for Part Time workers, which rolls over to the state to pay after a certain amount of time. Florida could afford the raise in unemployement benefits mandated, possibly. It'd explain why Crist is so arm in arm with Obama. Oh, Donna? No offense, but you're the last person I want choosing the next generation of Republicans. :D

Ironghost

Feb 23 2009

Charles Schumer (Dem from N.Y.) is urging the feds to tell some of these governors where to go with their feigned disdain for stimulus package. In other words, he wants to hold their feet to the fire, "either take it all or leave it all".....

lanier77

Feb 24 2009

House Democrats propose $410B spending bill By DAVID ESPO The Associated Press Monday, February 23, 2009; 11:54 PM WASHINGTON -- House Democrats unveiled a $410 billion spending bill on Monday to keep the government running through the end of the fiscal year, setting up the second political struggle over federal funds in less than a month with Republicans. The measure includes thousands of earmarks, the pet projects favored by lawmakers but often criticized by the public in opinion polls. There was no official total of the bill's earmarks, which accounted for at least $3.8 billion. The legislation, which includes an increase of roughly 8 percent over spending in the last fiscal year, is expected to clear the House later in the week. Hmmmm... tax cuts and uncontrolled spending. Where have I seen this plan before?

WMartin

Feb 24 2009

Again, the irony of Republicans, after almost a decade of massive spending increases, suggesting a spending freeze now that Obama is President and they are the powerless minority is telling.

Jeff Lucas

Feb 24 2009

[quote]Hmmmm... tax cuts and uncontrolled spending. Where have I seen this plan before? [/quote] WMartin, this is a bill for regular funding to operate the government. Is this much more than was spent under the Bush years? I know you and I are both very concerned about the rapid increase of government spending, but let's not pretend that this is spending above and beyond normal government operations (which always includes pork), like the stimulus package was. Heck, even the admitted pork in this bill accounts for less than 1% of the total package. Not nearly enough to cry foul over.

Jeff Lucas

Feb 24 2009

Seems even the U.S. Chamber, which has been decidedly Republican in their alliances over the past years, is now saying it's time to move on. Following is a press release from Rep. Travis Childers, Democrat, and the Chamber. [verbatim]U.S. Chamber Applauds Congressman Childers for Supporting Legislation that Creates Jobs. Mississippi Set to Gain 30,000 Jobs Over the Next Two Years WASHINGTON, DC— The U.S. Chamber of Commerce applauded Congressman Travis Childers (D-MS) for backing the recently-passed economic recovery plan, a major first step toward igniting consumption and investment, creating jobs and jumpstarting Mississippi’s economy. “Since the elections, we’ve worked with the President and Congressman Childers to quickly pass a bill that would apply a defibrillator to the economy and shock it back to life,” said Bruce Josten, the U.S. Chamber’s executive vice president of Government Affairs. “While not everyone in Washington or Mississippi agrees on every item in this package, the whole is more important than the individual parts,” Josten said. “Our economy is in uncharted and dangerous waters and inaction from Washington is not an option.” According to the Obama administration, Mississippi’s 1st Congressional District is set to gain 7,900 jobs over the next two years, thanks to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. “Now that this bill is a law, the real work must begin,” Josten said. “To quickly put Americans back to work and stimulate long term growth, the spending from this bill must be allocated quickly but responsibility”

Ronni_Mott

Feb 24 2009

Jeff, I am not pretending it's anything but more of the same that we are used to... was kind of my point. ;-) I don't know about you but I voted for change.

WMartin

Feb 24 2009

As did I. I'm giving Obama a chance to see if his way will work. But I knew going in he wasn't going to cut gov't spending.

Jeff Lucas

Feb 24 2009

What will you be using, Jeff Lucas, as a measuring stick for President OBama. What must he do and by what time frame? What measuring stick did this country use for Former President Bush? Where was the oversight and when did he come to media with the kind of transparence and numerical exactness that Pres. Obama is providing? If this kind of scrutiny had been given to Bush, a whole lot of things would be different.

justjess

Feb 24 2009

That isn't Obama's plan that is the house Democrats' bill. I knew going in money would have to be spent also and the President himself said he never envisioned the first thing out of the gate would be to spend almost $800 Billion. I am quite curious to see how he deals with it. I want to know whether he was being honest when he talked about the need for fiscal responsibility. Or if he will roll over for his party and increase government spending another 8 percent after just spending a trillion dollars.

WMartin

Feb 24 2009

I agree WM, it will be a challenge for him to move his party to reduce spending at some point. Right now he believes government has to spend at these levels because his economic advisers are suggesting it's the only way to jumpstart the economy and preserve jobs. I think he is more pragmatic than Pelosi and others in Congress who are content to spend taxpayer money like Clinton at a strip club.

Jeff Lucas

Feb 24 2009

Is this much more than was spent under the Bush years?- Jeff Lucas What measuring stick did this country use for Former President Bush?- justjess What are you two doing? Bush = not good president remember? Whatever anyone did with respect to Bush we should almost do the opposite because it was such a terrible failure. I am not going to give Obama a pass (like what I think makes any difference anyway) just because Bush got one or screwed up doing the same thing. Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result. Let's stop the madness.

WMartin

Feb 24 2009

[quote]Whatever anyone did with respect to Bush we should almost do the opposite because it was such a terrible failure.[/quote] The complete opposite would be to cut spending AND cut taxes, which neither party really believes in if the last 40 years are any indication. And many economists advising the President are saying it wouldn't work in this economy anyway. So if we are going to increase gov't spending, repairing our deteriorating infrastructure and education system is a sound investment, IMO.

Jeff Lucas

Feb 24 2009

That's not quite what I meant ...LOL. But it would be cut spending and Raise taxes which would certainly help the federal budget but not so much anyone else these days. What I did mean was: that to equate, in your case, Bush's economic policy with the spending bill should not be regarded as a reason to favor it. It would be like me arguing for a war of preemption against Iran and using the Bush policy in Iraq as an argument in favor of it. Or in justjess' case it would be like defending my Iran policy because Bush did it in Iraq.

WMartin

Feb 24 2009

baquan: [quote]I guess you can say, I am simply frustrated to see an Asian American, 1st generation American of immigrants, that is 37 years old, Ivy League educated - due to affirmative action policies/guidelines I may say, that is pushing "conservative" idealogy as if he were a 67 year old white male from Oxford, Mississippi.[/quote] I'll keep it brief since everyone else is discussing economics. Jindal is a conservative. He's the son of immigrants. Is he supposed, by that quirk of fate, to be liberal or something?

Ironghost

Feb 24 2009

How about because it can put every state into bankruptcy which allows globalization.

....

Feb 24 2009

State's can't run deficits. So the minute this funding vanishes (which it will), the states will either have to pick it up or cut back.

Ironghost

Feb 24 2009

This is meant to be a TEMPORARY jolt to the economy because we have been driven to the brink of depression by wingnut policies. To question whether states will be forced to continue the spending is as weird as saying you should not use a defribillator to shock a heart (in cardiac arrest) back into beating because some idiot might not stop shocking the poor devil once the heart is beating again. This economy is in serious condition and serious measured are needed temporarily. Most serious people acquainted with introduction to economics can grasp this. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/opinion/24herbert.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

FreeClif

Feb 24 2009

[quote]What I did mean was: that to equate, in your case, Bush's economic policy with the spending bill should not be regarded as a reason to favor it.[/quote] But that's not why I favor it. I prefer to see spending on domestic infrastructure, education and health care and not more preemptive strikes on foreign countries. And the spending is needed to counter the drop in aggregate demand that's crippling our economy.

Jeff Lucas

Feb 24 2009

And I'm certain an Obama tax increase is coming down the pipeline once indicators suggest the economy is turned around. And as a Middle-Class taxpayer I dread it.

Jeff Lucas

Feb 25 2009

Jeff, at least the new administration promises to tax the wealthy at a higher rate, too. Cutting taxes for the rich is just one of the fallacies of the Bush administration that turned out to be wrong. The wealthy (including big business, by the way) didn't spend their tax cuts in any economically meaningful way; they only "reinvested" those funds into the funny-money of Wall Street.

Ronni_Mott

Feb 25 2009