Replay: Granholm, Pawlenty, Rendell and Sanford on Pork
Last weekend four governors gave their political statements in answer to questions provided by Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday. Gov Granholm of Michigan does not dispute she is a money grabbing liberal and doesn’t care where it comes from or what it will cost in the long run. Gov Pawlenty of Minnesota offers his excuse for taking the money citing his state pays more to the federal government than they get back. Rendell is only slightly more subtle than Granholm but the money grabbing philosophy is nearly identical. From this transcript it is unclear whether Gov Sanford of South Carolina will follow suit with the others.
This is what bipartisanship is in the present day. Perhaps it was always that way. The fact is all the rhetoric and posturing that does not result in doing the right thing gets characterized as bipartisanship or simply the other guys fault followed by we have no choice.
The fact is you always have a choice. And when none of the choices are pleasant it is time to come up with another plan. Unless solutions proposed are supported by an overwhelming majority both in the government and the public responsible elected officials should continue to find the right solution. Suggesting we cannot wait or that we must act now or perish is simply fear mongering to get your way. And that is rarely the right way.
The transcript excerpts and link are provided below.
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
GRANHOLM: Well, this, to me, is not about philosophical theory. This is about real people who, through no fault of their own, are laid off because of a recession. They need to be able to put food on the table.
So you better believe I’m going to take every dollar that is coming to Michigan. And if my colleagues here in Minnesota and South Carolina don’t get — don’t use theirs, I’m going to be first in line to say for my people, for our citizens, to put people to work and to make sure that they can survive through this, I’ll take their dollars, too.
PAWLENTY: Well, I do. I don’t like this bill, but it is now the law. It’s not the bill that Mark and I would have crafted, but it’s now our responsibility and opportunity to try to implement it.
In Minnesota’s case, we are a major net subsidizer of the federal government, and that’s unlike some other states. For every dollar we send in, we only get 72 cents back. So we’re paying the bill either way. We’re going to take our share of the money.
We also don’t have some of the same impediments as some other states. In the unemployment area, this is a time to try to help unemployed people, and most of the enhancements that the federal government is requiring the states to undertake on this bill we did years ago. So it doesn’t impinge us or hurt us in that regard in Minnesota.
RENDELL: Well, in the long term, I don’t think anybody can be sure that any single thing is going to fix the economy. It has to be a number of things, attacking on all different sides of the problem. But I do think it will create jobs.
I mean, one thing I think we all agree on — and I hesitate to speak for all of us — is that the infrastructure dollars do produce jobs. There’s no question about that. You fix a bridge and people have to work on the bridge.
You fix a bridge and orders have to go out, hopefully, to Pennsylvania, or South Carolina, or Michigan, Minnesota companies, factories that desperately need orders — steel, concrete, asphalt, lumber. So there are aspects of this plan that are definitely job producers.
And in Pennsylvania, I think we’ll net about the same amount of jobs we’ve lost since August, 60,000 or 70,000 jobs, by the time we’re done. So there are elements of this that are terrific.
It’s not all stimulus. I mean, part of it is relief, and I think Tim said something that was very important. I’m not sure that we can, over the long run, cope with the higher unemployment compensation standard that this mandates for states, but I don’t care.
My people are suffering. My people are hurting. They need that extra money. And right now that’s paramount in my mind.
SANFORD: I guess my question would be wasn’t it the same sort of short-term thinking that got us into this problem in the first place.
And so if we say tell you what, you know, the unemployment benefit that would be basically foisted on different states is not sustainable, they can’t even pay for what they got, but they got to increase spending to — to — to pull down these federal funds, it goes to the heart of the bigger problem, which is, OK, you get a two- year window and then what happens.
You’re going to substantially increase taxes to get yourself out of the problem then? Are you going to issue more debt?
And I think one of the real issues here is we have $52 trillion in accumulated debt in Washington, D.C. And we don’t have a giant piggy bank that we can now raid now that times are tough. All this money is going to be borrowed from the future — from future generations, from Social Security.
So in essence, we’re digging yet another hole for ourselves with regard to unsustainable spending.