Louisiana’s Gov. Bobby Jindal, who gave last night’s Republican response to President Barack Obama’s address to Congress, makes a lot of sense in refusing to accept portions of the recently passed federal “stimulus” plan. He and a half dozen other Republican governors are right to object to a scheme that would require them to pay far more money over the long term, while taxing employers to do it, in order to grab a short-term windfall. Note that Jindal isn’t rejecting all the stimulus money earmarked for Louisiana, but only $32.8 million for expanding unemployment insurance. It’s worth quoting Jindal’s reasoning at length:
“It would be like spending $1 to get a dime. Why would we take temporary federal dollars if we’re going to end up having a permanent program? …. So many of these things that are called temporary programs end up being permanent government programs. But this one’s crystal clear, black and white, letter [of the] law. The federal stimulus bill says it has to be a permanent change in state law if you take this…. And so within three years, the federal money’s gone, we’ve got now a permanent change in our laws, we have to pay for it, our businesses pay for it. I don’t think it makes sense to be raising taxes on Louisiana businesses during these economically challenging times.”
Some critics of Jindal’s stance, including House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.), said it indicates a lack of concern for unemployed people who are disproportionately minorities. That’s race-baiting nonsense. At the same time Jindal announced his decision to reject one portion of “unemployment” funds, he said he will gladly accept another provision increasing unemployment benefits by $25 per recipient per week. The difference is, the latter provision doesn’t require a permanent, costly change in state law.
Congress should learn from Jindal’s careful reading of the actual details of the bill. This is the same Congress that rushed the bill, almost completely unread, to a vote less than 20 hours after first printing. And, as in the provision to which Jindal objected, much of the new spending is designed not to be temporary but permanent – meaning that taxpayers will be bearing its costs for years after the need for “stimulus” is a distant memory. Congress should be subject to the same truth-in-advertising laws it imposes on the rest of us.
