Leftist windbag trying to circumvent the U.S. Constitution

[Tigermike 4,243]

Sen. Chuck Schumer has decided he, not the Constitution, should be final arbiter as to whether states take the stimulus money or not:

“No one would dispute that these governors should be given the choice as to whether to accept the funds or not. But it should not be multiple choice.”

So he sent a letter to the OMB Director, Peter Orszag in which he said:

As you know, Section 1607(a) of the economic recovery legislation provides that the Governor of each state must certify a request for stimulus funds before any money can flow. No language in this provision, however, permits the governor to selectively adopt some components of the bill while rejecting others. To allow such picking and choosing would, in effect, empower the governors with a line-item veto authority that President Obama himself did not possess at the time he signed the legislation.

Well guess what Chuckie, no language in there says they must accept it all either. And, btw, many governors do enjoy line item vetoes. When do you plan on providing line item veto privileges for the President? It was you and other senators who have blocked such legislation at the federal level.

And then there’s that little thingy called the 10th amendment.

Schumer on governors rejecting recovery funds: The package is not ‘multiple choice.’

In response to several Republican governors declaring their intention to reject portions of the recently signed economic recovery package, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) sent a letter to OMB Director Peter Orszag on Tuesday arguing that the package does not allow governors to opt out of funding for particular portions of the bill. He writes, “No one would dispute that these governors should be given the choice as to whether to accept the funds or not. But it should not be multiple choice“:

As you know, Section 1607(a) of the economic recovery legislation provides that the Governor of each state must certify a request for stimulus funds before any money can flow. No language in this provision, however, permits the governor to selectively adopt some components of the bill while rejecting others. To allow such picking and choosing would, in effect, empower the governors with a line-item veto authority that President Obama himself did not possess at the time he signed the legislation.

Today, Govs. Phil Bredesen (D-TN) and Gov. John Lynch (D-NH) became the first Democratic governors to suggest that they would follow the GOP’s ill-advised lead in rejecting some of the stimulus funding. “We are evaluating this piece of money, whether it makes sense for us to take it. We may well be one of the states that say we can’t take on that portion of it,” Bredesen said in reference to the package’s funding for the expansion of unemployment insurance.

UpdateTestifying to Congress today, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said that states refusing to take funds for unemployment benefits would hamper the stimulative effect of the entire bill:

BERNANKE: If unemployment benefits are not distributed to the unemployed, then they won't spend them and it won't have that particular element of stimulus.

SEN. JACK REED (D-RI): So if this was done on a wide basis, it would be counterproductive, not productive?

From a LEFT WING BLOG

[JohnDeere 0]

The State will simply accept the apportionment. From there the State's governor/state legislature determines how they will allot the money to state agencies.

The entire media circus over these governors refusing funds is a joke and nothing but rethoric and political gamesmenship. A governor will not refuse an apportionment. That apportionment the state does not desire to allot/commit/obligate will set in the state's treasury and it will accure interest till the appropriation set forth in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act expires in a few years.

OMB is powerless to deal with states. OMB controls federal agencies; they have no sway in replacing the governor of say 'Alabama' or the Alabama State Treasurier/Comptroller because they failed to allot the funds to a state agency for execution.

The only methodology to determine if a budget/appropriation is executed properly is through the Congressional Budget Office's "scorekeeping" process. AND CBO (the least politicized organization in the federal legislative branch) was kicked to the damn curb and ignored when the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act went through Congress. So, do you really think CBO is going to jump up fast to go to work when Congress starts to cry and moan that they can't enforce the execution of these funds due to their being no budget formulation for this mess in 2010. Basically, Congress has no further monies to pull back from states as punishment in the future for not executing these current year funds.

In my opinion there is no accurate way to determine when and how these funds will be executed at state level. If the state doesn't want to play by the feds rules for reporting.....oh well, what can the feds do? At the federal agency level, DoD for example, DoD will make an attempt to report some numbers; but DoD as a whole is NOT agile enough with their accounting systems to just start up some weekly reports to some brand new goofy website. The Under Secretary of Defense/Comptroller will get a slap on the hand; why should he worry, he is from the Bush administration.

The whole website idea is nothing but a clever trick to sway public opinion. Does Berry really believe NOBODY in OMB has ever heard of the internet and considered posting some financial statements? Of course OMB would not setup a flashy site like recovery.gov, like it is some sort of campaign website. And the idea that you can sign the largest appropriation bill in the history of the WORLD and expect agencies to start making weekly reports (that nobody even knows the reporting requirements yet) to some fancy website is A) totally naive, absurb, C) just a political game.

Rant off.