Ever since President Barack Obama signed that massive $787 billion stimulus package into effect, a number of states and municipalities have been lining up at the trough, wish lists and pet projects in hand.
However, a few GOP governors -- mostly from the Deep South, in states that could sure use the bucks -- banded together to call the stimulus package by its right name. They're calling it the mother of all spending sprees, saying there are too many strings attached, and suggesting they may even sit this one out.
These governors are not a bunch of backward country boys, either. There are some real stars in this group, including Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who along with Sarah Palin is considered the future of the party.
Ad South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford to this mix, too. In fact, you can probably call him one of the ringleaders in this mini-rebellion.
Readers of this column know I respect mark Sanford. I don't know the man, but I like what he's been doing here, and I especially like where he's coming from. Don't be fooled by his party affiliation. He's listed as a Republican, but in reality he's a libertarian in elephant's clothing. Sometimes, especially with guys like John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger floating around, it's hard to tell the pachyderms from the donkeys on the political landscape. Maybe it's because they all tend to be jackasses. But Sanford stands out.
Sanford's not exactly been enthused about accepting even a dime of the stimulus package, but later softened his stance some. Some. Just a bit. Meanwhile, Congressman Jim Clyburn, a Democrat from South Carolina's Sixth District, is trying to bypass recalcitrant governors (such as Sanford) and get stimulus money into the states without them. Oh, well. So much for states' rights.
This past weekend, Sanford said it's lunacy to mortgage the future and hock the family jewels for a few stimulus bucks today. OK, he didn't use those exact words, but you get the drift.
I don't claim to be any kind of economist. For me, high finance is making sure I can feed self and dog, pay my bills, and maybe salt away a few bucks. I could say I put my money into CDs, but they're usually of the Miles Davis or Willie Nelson variety. I can work up a personal budget and make it work, and that's about it for economics. But I do know a few basic truths.
Like, you can't creat money out of thin air. You can't make something out of nothing, though a few corporate heads have tried. And you can't spend like a drunken sailor today without getting a huge bill for it tomorrow.
OK. Governments are slightly different in that they have a few more ways to raise revenue than private citizens do, and they can play with the time line a bit. They have a few more tools at their disposal, but the basic truths remain the same.
Here's the reality: Floating money now means the bill will still come up big in the future. No way around that. The time line is a lot looser, though. If you run up a lot of debts, you'll get phone calls within months. The government can spend, string the taxpayers along, and the bill will still come up. Only it'll come up far in the future. Would you care at that point? Probably not. You may be dead by then, or at least at the point you don't know what color Jell-O they're feeding you at The Home. Your kids or grandkids will get the bill. OK, screw 'em, you say? Wrong at every level ...
OK, you say. The government still has an out. Crank up the printing presses, spit out more $100 bills. Let 'em eat funny money.
It is a possible scenario. Our money is already funny, not backed up by anything. It's not like you can tie one dollar to x amount of gold or silver, so good luck trying to define a dollar. If I remember correctly, the print-'em-like-crazy angle has been tried, and it was a big reason why the economy did its tank job in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Gold was up to $850 an ounce, silver up to $48, inflation was in the double-digit range, and unemployment was ridiculously high. Forget it. Don't want it, don't need it.
Getting back to our holdout governors, I don't expect many others to pick up that ball. The Jindals and Sanfords are operating from a principle (though I'll admit their statements are ideologically motivated, too). And principle doesn't pay in politics, especially when the trough is full and all the barnyard creatures are lined up for what they feel is theirs.
=====
[You tell me! Do governors like Bobby Jindal and Mark Sanford have their constituents' best interests at heart, or are they just a bunch of cranks? And what's your take on Clyburn's efforts here? Use the comments section for input.]
However, a few GOP governors -- mostly from the Deep South, in states that could sure use the bucks -- banded together to call the stimulus package by its right name. They're calling it the mother of all spending sprees, saying there are too many strings attached, and suggesting they may even sit this one out.
These governors are not a bunch of backward country boys, either. There are some real stars in this group, including Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who along with Sarah Palin is considered the future of the party.
Ad South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford to this mix, too. In fact, you can probably call him one of the ringleaders in this mini-rebellion.
Readers of this column know I respect mark Sanford. I don't know the man, but I like what he's been doing here, and I especially like where he's coming from. Don't be fooled by his party affiliation. He's listed as a Republican, but in reality he's a libertarian in elephant's clothing. Sometimes, especially with guys like John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger floating around, it's hard to tell the pachyderms from the donkeys on the political landscape. Maybe it's because they all tend to be jackasses. But Sanford stands out.
Sanford's not exactly been enthused about accepting even a dime of the stimulus package, but later softened his stance some. Some. Just a bit. Meanwhile, Congressman Jim Clyburn, a Democrat from South Carolina's Sixth District, is trying to bypass recalcitrant governors (such as Sanford) and get stimulus money into the states without them. Oh, well. So much for states' rights.
This past weekend, Sanford said it's lunacy to mortgage the future and hock the family jewels for a few stimulus bucks today. OK, he didn't use those exact words, but you get the drift.
I don't claim to be any kind of economist. For me, high finance is making sure I can feed self and dog, pay my bills, and maybe salt away a few bucks. I could say I put my money into CDs, but they're usually of the Miles Davis or Willie Nelson variety. I can work up a personal budget and make it work, and that's about it for economics. But I do know a few basic truths.
Like, you can't creat money out of thin air. You can't make something out of nothing, though a few corporate heads have tried. And you can't spend like a drunken sailor today without getting a huge bill for it tomorrow.
OK. Governments are slightly different in that they have a few more ways to raise revenue than private citizens do, and they can play with the time line a bit. They have a few more tools at their disposal, but the basic truths remain the same.
Here's the reality: Floating money now means the bill will still come up big in the future. No way around that. The time line is a lot looser, though. If you run up a lot of debts, you'll get phone calls within months. The government can spend, string the taxpayers along, and the bill will still come up. Only it'll come up far in the future. Would you care at that point? Probably not. You may be dead by then, or at least at the point you don't know what color Jell-O they're feeding you at The Home. Your kids or grandkids will get the bill. OK, screw 'em, you say? Wrong at every level ...
OK, you say. The government still has an out. Crank up the printing presses, spit out more $100 bills. Let 'em eat funny money.
It is a possible scenario. Our money is already funny, not backed up by anything. It's not like you can tie one dollar to x amount of gold or silver, so good luck trying to define a dollar. If I remember correctly, the print-'em-like-crazy angle has been tried, and it was a big reason why the economy did its tank job in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Gold was up to $850 an ounce, silver up to $48, inflation was in the double-digit range, and unemployment was ridiculously high. Forget it. Don't want it, don't need it.
Getting back to our holdout governors, I don't expect many others to pick up that ball. The Jindals and Sanfords are operating from a principle (though I'll admit their statements are ideologically motivated, too). And principle doesn't pay in politics, especially when the trough is full and all the barnyard creatures are lined up for what they feel is theirs.
=====
[You tell me! Do governors like Bobby Jindal and Mark Sanford have their constituents' best interests at heart, or are they just a bunch of cranks? And what's your take on Clyburn's efforts here? Use the comments section for input.]
No comments:
Post a Comment