Commentary Magazine


Contentions

You Mean They’re Reading it?

The favorite media storyline on the stimulus bill is not how much money will be wasted, how ill-prepared we are to spend it, how non-stimulative much of it is, or even what its impact is on the country’s future budgetary train wreck. No, it is the Republican governors who are “embroiled” in a fight about whether to use the stimulus money in their states. That mantra is repeated endlessly — the GOP governors are “at odds” or “in conflict.” This is rubbish, even for the MSM.

There is no “conflict” if Minnesota uses every dime and South Carolina chooses not to increase the sums available for unemployment insurance. It’s no skin off the noses of Mississippi voters if Californians want to use all the funds. It’s called federalism — each state determines what is appropriate, how funds are to be used, and whether they wish to embark on an expansion of programs which lack future funding.

Yes, the feds did make a sly attempt to force the state legislatures to spend the money (via a measure inserted by Rep. James Clyburn) even if the governor of a certain state rejects part of the money. That’s a nasty bit of unconstitutional meddling in states’ internal operations by the federal government. If the congressmen and president demand the money be spent, let them spend it. But they do not have the right to order states to do what they won’t do themselves.

Which returns us to the faux controversy kicked up by the media. I suppose any resistance to implementing the will of the Obama administration is fodder for their ire. And it’s always fun for them to stir the pot among Republicans. But this is a stretch. Governors have every right and obligation to make decisions for their states. Governors — unlike the media, Congress, and the president – are now taking time to examine what’s in the massive spending measure and figure out what makes sense for their states.

That’s certainly a departure from the last few weeks, and likely a story the Obama-cheering media would rather not examine. People, after all, might start wondering why politicians now are only beginning to read this monstrous bit of legislation.


Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »





Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.