Sunday, February 22, 2009

Rendell vs. Sanford, Sanford Wins Hands Down

Governor Rindell (D-PA) was on Fox New Sunday with Jennifer Granholm (D-MI), Mark Sanford (R-SC) and Tim Pawlenty (R-MN). While they were discussing the “Stimulus” Bill and the unemployment benefits that each state would receive, it was mentioned that each state has different laws and circumstances. This means each state needs to consider if it is in their best interest to take the money and the “strings attached” to the money. This explains why some states, such as Louisiana and South Carolina, are not taking the money, while Minnesota and other Republican ran states might.

The key point that was made by Sanford was that the unemployment funds would come into the state to assist their current needs, but when the funds would lapse in two years, they would be left with a huge deficit in their unemployment program. It would force them to raise taxes or cut programs elsewhere.

To clarify, what was not made clear on Fox, but Governor Bobby Jindal made clear on Meet the Press, is that the unemployment benefits provision in the Stimulus Bill forces the states that take the money to change their benefits program permanently. Therefore, as Sanford said, after the stimulus funds run out the state is left with the deficit that they need to cover.

Sanford said he would not do that to his state or constituents—a smart, fiscally conservative thing to do. Rindell on the other hand, said, “ he did not care.” Yes, he said he did care about the deficits or the future. All he was worried about was about the here and now. He doesn’t have a plan on how to handle the deficit in the future. Spoken like a true Liberal.

Hey, Democrats, a little secret you need to know. The reason why your states, like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Kansas to name just a few, are in financial emergencies is that you did not worry about the future deficits and did not plan for the future.

Sanford cleaned Granholm’s clock as well. He was impressive in how he explained his fiscal conservative principles. It was great to hear him explain everything he was asked in way anyone could understand it, even Granholm, who was obviously upset by his clear explanations.

Sanford easily made Rindell and Granholm look particularly uniformed and extremely Liberal. Good for him.


  1. These hooks in the stimulus plan are scary. This would limit freedom as choice in the future would be reduced. Indebtedness is slavery.

    I am curious. If a state takes the stimulus money and then in three years decides to change them from the 2009 stimulus decree, what is the punishment? Also, does the state have to maintain these sorts of benefits for a limited amount of time or is it eternal?

    Who knows, after eight years of socialism, what states are required to give may look conservative!! It could provide a basis upon which to refuse even deeper Federal socialist mandates.

    PS Putting your URL on the bottom of Atlas posts works!!!

    Culturist John

  2. Thanks for visiting and for the tip!

    I don't know what their punishment would be, either. Good question! Knowing how vague the bill was written, it was probably not mentioned, which means that the government would pass a law later to “define” the punishment. That is typical of how things work now and how unfair the government is operating.

    Lastly, I checked your blog. Nice post!