This Is Why I Wish Politicians Would Be More Honest

[DRSmith]

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Texas Gov. Rick Perry likes to tell Washington to stop meddling in state affairs. He vocally opposed the Obama administration's 2009 stimulus program to spur the economy and assist cash-strapped states.

Perry also likes to trumpet that his state balanced its budget in 2009, while keeping billions in its rainy day fund.

But he couldn't have done that without a lot of help from ... guess where? Washington.

Turns out Texas was the state that depended the most on those very stimulus funds to plug nearly 97% of its shortfall for fiscal 2010, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Even budget deficits are bigger in Texas

Texas, which crafts a budget every two years, was facing a $6.6 billion shortfall for its 2010-2011 fiscal years. It plugged nearly all of that deficit with $6.4 billion in Recovery Act money, allowing it to leave its $9.1 billion rainy day fund untouched.

"Stimulus was very helpful in getting them through the last few years," said Brian Sigritz, director of state fiscal studies for the National Association of State Budget Officers, said of Texas.

Even as Perry requested the Recovery Act money, he railed against it. On the very same day he asked for the funds, he set up a petition titled "No Government Bailouts."

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/23/news/economy/texas_perry_budget_stimulus/index.htm

Why do the people instead of bashing the gov admit the gov does some good and the states and the feds work together?

[Chicken Fried]

Why do the people instead of bashing the gov admit the gov does some good and the states and the feds work together?

Much of the fault for needing a bailout in the first place lies with the federal government.

As for Perry requesting bailout money, I don't see a problem. Are you going to deny getting money from the government when every other state is getting it? If you have an opportunity to get money for your state, do you turn it down? Should your constituents pay federal taxes and then not get anything in return? I strongly oppose the bailout. It shouldn't have happened. Even so, if I were a governor, I wouldn't deny federal money. If it's available, I'm going to take it. The point is that it shouldn't be there to begin with, though.

As a result of the bailout, the feds now own more and more of the private sector. That doesn't sound like the states and feds working together.

[December90]

Texas, which crafts a budget every two years, was facing a $6.6 billion shortfall for its 2010-2011 fiscal years. It plugged nearly all of that deficit with $6.4 billion in Recovery Act money, allowing it to leave its $9.1 billion rainy day fund untouched.

So what you are saying is that Texas did in fact have their budget shortfall covered, but used money that was available to them to protect their savings account instead?

If you disagree with lower taxes, do you just pay more out of principle or do you take all of the deductions that the law allows? Why should Rick Perry have given up the money for Texas that the Feds were throwing around?

Perhaps if the Federal Government would back off on ridiculous unfunded mandates for the states then they wouldn't "need" the dependency on Uncle Sam.

[DRSmith]

Much of the fault for needing a bailout in the first place lies with the federal government.

As for Perry requesting bailout money, I don't see a problem. Are you going to deny getting money from the government when every other state is getting it? If you have an opportunity to get money for your state, do you turn it down? Should your constituents pay federal taxes and then not get anything in return? I strongly oppose the bailout. It shouldn't have happened. Even so, if I were a governor, I wouldn't deny federal money. If it's available, I'm going to take it. The point is that it shouldn't be there to begin with, though.

As a result of the bailout, the feds now own more and more of the private sector. That doesn't sound like the states and feds working together.

If I am getting money from the government I would not spend my time bashing the same people giving me money.

If I really felt something was immoral I would not take money from it.

[Henry]

Much of the fault for needing a bailout in the first place lies with the federal government.

As for Perry requesting bailout money, I don't see a problem. Are you going to deny getting money from the government when every other state is getting it? If you have an opportunity to get money for your state, do you turn it down? Should your constituents pay federal taxes and then not get anything in return? I strongly oppose the bailout. It shouldn't have happened. Even so, if I were a governor, I wouldn't deny federal money. If it's available, I'm going to take it. The point is that it shouldn't be there to begin with, though.

As a result of the bailout, the feds now own more and more of the private sector. That doesn't sound like the states and feds working together.

I think the point is that Texas has often been pointed to as a fiscally responsible state, who's conservative policies have enabled it to enjoy relative financial stability. If it turns out that the liberal fiscal policies of the federal government greatly contributed to the foundation of that stability, well, that's worth noting.

[DRSmith]

So what you are saying is that Texas did in fact have their budget shortfall covered, but used money that was available to them to protect their savings account instead?

If you disagree with lower taxes, do you just pay more out of principle or do you take all of the deductions that the law allows? Why should Rick Perry have given up the money for Texas that the Feds were throwing around?

Perhaps if the Federal Government would back off on ridiculous unfunded mandates for the states then they wouldn't "need" the dependency on Uncle Sam.

And apparently they still have money and instead of funding government programs they will cut things for the citizens.

As for my taxes I pay whatever is asked and I do not complain

[aREDSKIN]

Why do the people instead of bashing the gov admit the gov does some good and the states and the feds work together?

Outside of lying the second absolutely needed prerequisite for a politician is hypocrisy. Go figure.

[Madison Redskin]

As for Perry requesting bailout money, I don't see a problem. Are you going to deny getting money from the government when every other state is getting it? If you have an opportunity to get money for your state, do you turn it down?

Texas didn't just take the money, it ASKED for it. So, in other words, the Governor railed against fiscal irresponsibility and the government bailing out fiscally irresponsible entities, and then said, "****, we've been fiscally irresponsible, would you please bail us out?" Are you actually going to attempt to defend that BS?

[DRSmith]

Back in the day when I had cancer and had to go off work on a government diability I had to declare all my assets such as stocks savings etc etc and before I would have gotten any money from the govt I would have had to use up those assets, seems like that would have been a good idea here too.

[ACW]

If I am getting money from the government I would not spend my time bashing the same people giving me money.

If I really felt something was immoral I would not take money from it.

Yes. See Gov. Sanford refusing stimulus money.

[Henry]

Yes. See Gov. Sanford refusing stimulus money.

To be fair the SC supreme court over-ruled him and made him request the money anyway.

I think.

Could be something like that happened here too. I don't really know.

[Hubbs]

To be fair the SC supreme court over-ruled him and made him request the money anyway.

I think.

That's what I remember as well, except I thought it was an overrule vote from the state legislature.

[Chicken Fried]

Texas didn't just take the money, it ASKED for it. So, in other words, the Governor railed against fiscal irresponsibility and the government bailing out fiscally irresponsible entities, and then said, "****, we've been fiscally irresponsible, would you please bail us out?" Are you actually going to attempt to defend that BS?

The only way to get the money is to ask for it. If everyone else is asking for it, you have to as well to keep your state competitive. The whole point is that all the other states shouldn't be asking for it because there shouldn't be anything to ask for.

[twa]

Back in the day when I had cancer and had to go off work on a government diability I had to declare all my assets such as stocks savings etc etc and before I would have gotten any money from the govt I would have had to use up those assets, seems like that would have been a good idea here too.

Really?

Would you also support requiring states to make use of their assets before receiving money?

Whole lotta natural resources in some states being kept off limits that would generate funds

You might ask yourself why so many states are still in bad shape after the stimulus and why more changes weren't made.

Texas requires spending within limits,with corrections every two yrs

Your assertions on Perry are faulty,and I don't even like him.

[Madison Redskin]

The only way to get the money is to ask for it. If everyone else is asking for it, you have to as well to keep your state competitive. The whole point is that all the other states shouldn't be asking for it because there shouldn't be anything to ask for.

So, in other words, he asked for something he is against asking for.

[DRSmith]

Really?

Would you also support requiring states to make use of their assets before receiving money?

Whole lotta natural resources in some states being kept off limits that would generate funds

You might ask yourself why so many states are still in bad shape after the stimulus and why more changes weren't made.

Texas requires spending within limits,with corrections every two yrs

Your assertions on Perry are faulty,and I don't even like him.

9 billion sitting in the bank could have been used

As for either side complaining about need fo money and enrgy independence and not doing things in their own back yard does not fly with me either.

[mojobo]

So, in other words, he asked for something he is against asking for.

In other words Texas feels state bailouts are irresponsible because the costs outweigh the benefits and because they hold this position they should not be granted any of the benefits of the program even though they are still responsible for the costs?

[Duckus]

What deficit?

There is no deficit Texas. Texas has been run by a Republican Governor, a Republican control state Senate and a Republican controlled House. There is NO WAY a GOP controlled state like Texas ran up a 27 billion dollar deficit. So yea right - check your facts because all is fine down here.

In fact, I know there is not a budget or deficit emergency in Texas. Because our governor has already released a list of his emergency items for this Legislative Session. Budget nor the economy is anywhere on there. On it is the following:

1) Voter ID (show an ID to vote)

2) End sanctuary cities (whatever that is)

3) Sonogram Laws (making women watch a sonogram before getting an abortion)

No problem here. Move on along.

Rick Perry for President! :pfft:

PS - The Daily Show was in Austin last week. Look for it this Thursday. I believe they were doing interviews on the desire for a Christian Speaker of the House by some GOP members.

[Destino]

Some people are going to throw their backs out contorting themselves trying to argue against the obvious in this thread. The governors making political hay out of opposing these "hand outs" could have easily cut their budgets and avoided needing the money being offered them. OR if you don't like that option they could have kept their mouths shut about it after having accepted and used the funds to save their budgets. Using the money and then promoting the fact that you have a balanced budget while pretending it was all your doing and opposing the hand out... that's frankly just plain dishonesty.

But I'd like to take this further. I want a red state to have the balls to institute the plans conservatives worship. Eliminate all hand outs for everyone. Remove the government from every thing you possibly can. Slash taxes as much as possible.

Then let the people decide if they like the conservative vision for America. I'm betting they hate it. I'm betting conservative strategists realize they'd hate it. This is why they sell the liberal reality while pretending they can put a conservative price tag on it.

Freedom isn't free. Neither are well equipped public schools, police departments, emergency care, safety nets, and the rest of the things society takes for granted. Try living without it and then decide which you like more.

[twa]

9 billion sitting in the bank could have been used

As for either side complaining about need fo money and enrgy independence and not doing things in their own back yard does not fly with me either.

It ain't raining and that 9B is drawing interest,we might need it with some of the idiotic regulations coming out

Your double standards are entertaining and your complaints about Texas taking money we pay for is laughable.

Wow the Legislature determines ...imagine that

http://lubbockonline.com/stories/050309/loc_435890595.shtml

Stimulus in hands of state House

---------- Post added January-24th-2011 at 02:41 PM ----------

What deficit?

There is no deficit Texas. .

Speaking of honesty,isn't it a FACT Texas is forbidden to run a deficit?

http://www.willisms.com/

As Kevin D. Williamson notes, Texas is not at all broke, and the "shortfall" is just part of what keeps Texas from having actual deficits and debt:

Texas doesn’t do shortfalls. Texas starts from scratch: Every year is basically Year Zero when it comes to the state budget — there is no assumption that next year’s funding will match or exceed this year’s, and the state’s constitution explicitly forbids any legislature to tie the hands of a subsequent legislature, financially or otherwise. When necessary, Texas implements zero-baseline budgets, in order to keep the state living within its means, even if Paul Krugman thinks it beastly.

[Mad Mike]

Barack Hussein Obama

Leader of the "Land that was once free and the home of the slave"

Help me out here. WTF is that supposed to mean?

[DRSmith]

It ain't raining and that 9B is drawing interest,we might need it with some of the idiotic regulations coming out

Your double standards are entertaining and your complaints about Texas taking money we pay for is laughable.

Wow the Legislature determines ...imagine that

http://lubbockonline.com/stories/050309/loc_435890595.shtml

Stimulus in hands of state House

---------- Post added January-24th-2011 at 02:41 PM ----------

Speaking of honesty,isn't it a FACT Texas is forbidden to run a deficit?

http://www.willisms.com/

As Kevin D. Williamson notes, Texas is not at all broke, and the "shortfall" is just part of what keeps Texas from having actual deficits and debt:

Texas doesn’t do shortfalls. Texas starts from scratch: Every year is basically Year Zero when it comes to the state budget — there is no assumption that next year’s funding will match or exceed this year’s, and the state’s constitution explicitly forbids any legislature to tie the hands of a subsequent legislature, financially or otherwise. When necessary, Texas implements zero-baseline budgets, in order to keep the state living within its means, even if Paul Krugman thinks it beastly.

What double standard would that be?

According to the article the budgets are done every two years

[Chicken Fried]

Some people are going to throw their backs out contorting themselves trying to argue against the obvious in this thread. The governors making political hay out of opposing these "hand outs" could have easily cut their budgets and avoided needing the money being offered them. OR if you don't like that option they could have kept their mouths shut about it after having accepted and used the funds to save their budgets. Using the money and then promoting the fact that you have a balanced budget while pretending it was all your doing and opposing the hand out... that's frankly just plain dishonesty.

But I'd like to take this further. I want a red state to have the balls to institute the plans conservatives worship. Eliminate all hand outs for everyone. Remove the government from every thing you possibly can. Slash taxes as much as possible.

Then let the people decide if they like the conservative vision for America. I'm betting they hate it. I'm betting conservative strategists realize they'd hate it. This is why they sell the liberal reality while pretending they can put a conservative price tag on it.

Freedom isn't free. Neither are well equipped public schools, police departments, emergency care, safety nets, and the rest of the things society takes for granted. Try living without it and then decide which you like more.

This isn't double talk. Why should the people of Texas pay federal taxes but not get their share back in the bailout? Why should Texas taxpayers pay for a bailout for the rest of the country but get nothing themselves? That would be like making a donation to the feds. Does that make sense to you? I think you're the one who is twisting around trying to make this argument work.

Implementing true conservative plans doesn't require cutting all public services. It requires being smart about how money is used instead of blindly supporting all fiscal decisions the government makes in some blind belief that it knows what's best for you. Don't make these exaggerated claims about what "life will be like" under the crazy conservatives. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that true conservatives aren't anarchists like you're implying. In your exaggeration about a land with no education and safety provisions, that is anarchy. You're missing about 30 pages of explanation as to how we get from actual conservative principle implementation to an anarchist state.

[twa]

What double standard would that be?

According to the article the budgets are done every two years

I was probably unfair with the double standard bit,it was in reference to you saying all assets/funds should be considered then flipping it off in the next post

Our legislature only convenes every two yrs....keeps them out of mischief :pfft:

added

we also limit that to 140 days...gotta keep them on their toes

added

After rereading your comments I was wrong on the double standard crack...my apologies

[Destino]

This isn't double talk. Why should the people of Texas pay federal taxes but not get their share back in the bailout? Why should Texas taxpayers pay for a bailout for the rest of the country but get nothing themselves? That would be like making a donation to the feds. Does that make sense to you? I think you're the one who is twisting around trying to make this argument work.

I never said a thing about them not taking the money and this sure as hell is double talk. What I said was they could have cut their budgets to not NEED it, thus showing the some action to go along with those conservative ideals. It would have made a strong point and allowed them to honestly campaign against such spending. What they did instead was use the money, then pat themselves on the back for having a balanced budget and taking credit for it, while at the same time complaining about the funds that allowed that to be possible. You can't have it both ways, either admit you needed the money to balance said budgets or show that you didn't and pat yourself on the back.

Implementing true conservative plans doesn't require cutting all public services. It requires being smart about how money is used instead of blindly supporting all fiscal decisions the government makes in some blind belief that it knows what's best for you. Don't make these exaggerated claims about what "life will be like" under the crazy conservatives. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that true conservatives aren't anarchists like you're implying. In your exaggeration about a land with no education and safety provisions, that is anarchy. You're missing about 30 pages of explanation as to how we get from actual conservative principle implementation to an anarchist state.

Of course the implementation of conservative ideals requires the cutting of PUBLIC services but that has nothing to do with anarchy though I find it hilarious that a conservative would think so. Conservatives are the champions of privatization and the insane belief that the "invisible hand" will magically solve all of life's problems. So privatize the roads and massively slash or eliminate the budget for state Department of Transportation. Toll roads for everyone so the free market can decide what roads are needed and deliver maintenance at the price the free market will support. Privatize schools and trust that the free market will provide a proper and somewhat even education for all state children. Privatize police forces so they can join jails in the march to remove the justice system from government hands reducing the government involvement in peoples lives. Eliminate car standards requiring inspection because the government shouldn't be telling you what to do with your car! Remove all social safety nets for the unemployed because such things create a "moral hazard" and don't motivate people to work. Stop food stamps and the like because if people want to help each other they must choose to do so. Tell the feds you don't need any stinking post offices in your state because private companies can do better for less. The list goes on and on. Cut the government everywhere it rears it's head into the life of people and replace it with private business that you trust will do better by the people than the government ever could.

Don't you dare regulate them though! Self regulation is the key to private success. No gotcha inspections either, as we've heard predictable standards are essential to business success otherwise you sap their resources!

Actually do the things conservatives have the courage to preach but not practice. Then let people decide if they want to live there or somewhere else. For once stop promising the liberal reality at the conservative price which is a reality that cannot exist. Deliver the tiny weak government conservatives claim to want so badly and a world ruled entirely by for-profit motivations.