Obama's first failed appointment

[classicman]

The issue I have a problem with is that, and this is not clear, the bill may have put into place items into the states budgets that will force not only current spending from the stimulus bill, but also future spending as well. There was a lot of discussion about it again this morning on tv. I'm not sure how this is possible, but I didn't like what I was "half hearing" as I got ready for work. Anyone else heard or have any info on this?

Originally Posted by classicman

The issue I have a problem with is that, and this is not clear, the bill may have put into place items into the states budgets that will force not only current spending from the stimulus bill, but also future spending as well. There was a lot of discussion about it again this morning on tv. I'm not sure how this is possible, but I didn't like what I was "half hearing" as I got ready for work. Anyone else heard or have any info on this?

Im not sure what this means, but it sounds like one of those talking points.

The "state stabilization funds" component of the bill are to supplement the growing need for funding for programs administered by the states - $$$ for unemployment insurance or food stamps as a result of 3 million people loosng their jobs in the last 18 months. Or $$$ in education or public safety funds so states/cities/counties dont have to lay-off teachers or cops.

Many of the infrastructure and jobs projects, would seem to support, at least to some degree, the Reagan concept of "new federalism".....send the money to states, with few strings attached beyond broad program objectives, and let the states determine the best means of allocating those funds.

There are programs in the bill that would likely require long term funding in order to meet long term objectives. The intent of the stimulus bill has the duel purpose of creating jobs and providing "start up" for these longer term objectives - funding the development of "green" programs is an example.

But there is nothing to suggest that funding for those programs wont go through the normal appropriations process in the future, when the situation is less of an "emergency" to prevent the economy from continuing to decline.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

But there is nothing to suggest that funding for those programs wont go through the normal appropriations process in the future, when the situation is less of an "emergency" to prevent the economy from continuing to decline.

There is definately nothing to say that the funds will go through such a process.

Originally Posted by classicman

The issue I have a problem with is that, and this is not clear, the bill may have put into place items into the states budgets that will force not only current spending from the stimulus bill, but also future spending as well. There was a lot of discussion about it again this morning on tv. I'm not sure how this is possible, but I didn't like what I was "half hearing" as I got ready for work. Anyone else heard or have any info on this?

Poking around a bit on the issue of "putting items into state budgets that will force not only current spending..but also future spending.."

It looks to me like a few Republican governors with presidential ambitions - Palin, Pawlenty, Jindal - suggesting the bill contains unfunded state mandates...but offer no specificity on such mandates.