Thursday, February 19, 2009

Just Say NO

Several Governors are considering rejection of the stimulus money from Washington, D.C.
Though none has outright rejected the money available for education, health care and infrastructure, the governors of Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alaska, South Carolina and Idaho have all questioned whether the $787 billion bill signed into law this week will even help the economy.

"My concern is there's going to be commitments attached to it that are a mile long," said Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who considered rejecting some of the money but decided Wednesday to accept it. "We need the freedom to pick and choose. And we need the freedom to say 'No thanks.'"
Government money = Strings attached.

Just like in real life, you just have to refuse the help from your parents if you want to be a free adult.

Are you listening Governor Rell? What will the Feds expect CT do in exchange for the billions?

Elected officials must surely understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Will every Governor (and their legislatures) in this country be an accomplice in the eventual hyperinflation that this monetized legislation will produce?

Will every Governor (and their legislatures) be accountable to our children and grandchildren and their children who will have to pay for this legislation?

Will every Governor (and their legislatures) be accountable when this Federal money grows government to even larger unsustainable proportions?

Cut the spending and shrink government now - that is the answer to this problem.

Who has the guts to say NO?


iBlogWestHartford said...

This is a grand opportunity for Connecticut!

Let's accept the federal dollars that Texas doesn't want, and provide health insurance to our 325,000 state residents who don't have it.

Let's accept the federal dollars that Mississippi doesn't want, and close the achievement gap forever by giving all Connecticut kids a quality education (and not one dependent on the wealth and property taxes of the town they happen to be born in).

And let's accept the federal dollars that Louisiana, South Carolina and Idaho simply can't handle, shut down our many Connecticut military/war contractors (subs, helicopters, etc.) and take the lead in the new "green economy" with clean, healthy industries (with jobs for all those former defense employees).

But the money for Alaska – let’s make Alaska take it and use it to create sex education programs for their schools.

mccommas said...


That's right. Shower our problems with money and watch them just disappear!
*POOF* Oh look. They are gone forever. That was so easy. Why didn’t we do that years ago?

And nice jab at Governor Palin's daughter. Why don't you give her adult son a kick too while you are at it. Or don't you pick on full grown men?


I have been listening to all this outcries of how the corporations are spending, or misspending, the money. I have a bit of a different take than most people. My view is that we should not have offered it and they should not have taken it in the first place for the very reason you give.
Your parents-analogy is so apt. I have thought the same thing.

Corporations should live or die on their own. It’s just unnatural to throw them a lifeline and then pester them how they spend their money. Doesn’t that retard the learning curve? Is it their money or our money? I was taught when you give something away it is no longer yours.

No one should be surprised they spent the money on jets and buying other banks.

The more debate I hear the more I am swayed by the concept of just letting the weak die. Let the market correct itself. The dead companies share in the market will be grabbed by some other company or companies moving in to take its place. The new will adapt. The old will die. This could be a time of huge opportunity for scrappy warriors to take the place of old defeated used up bloated dinosaurs.

But instead we put a mortgage on the entire country to prop it all up. I used to do something when I was young and ran out of money. I would write a check to the grocery store for 25 dollars over the price of what ever I was buying (usually food if I was out). Then the next day to cover that check I would write another one and deposit the cash to buy myself time. I would do this the next day too if necessary and maybe to different stores until payday when I would have enough real money to cover all these checks.
You can imagine what eventually happened. All my checks would come in to early and I would get my check eaten up by fees. Then I would really be broke and hungry.
Obama’s fiscal policy reminds me of that trick.

iBlogWestHartford said...


I agree with you completely on the mistake of pouring taypayer dollars into failing corporations.

It's as if Chrysler is saying to us: "We make crappy cars. You were smart enough not to buy one. But we are going to get your money anyway."

The real challenge will be when it's a CONNECTICUT company that is failing and begging for federal welfare. I suspect that many who agree with us now could change their tune when the cry of "We can't lose Connecticut jobs" goes up.

My guess is that first local industry that will collapse and go looking for a bail-out is health insurance (joining the long list of financial service sectors that have tanked). They seem to be increasingly unable to produce a quality, affordable product - and it's starting to show in their bottom lines.

Have a great weekend!