Should the state ever turn down federal money?
Posted at 5:00 AM on September 2, 2010
by Eric Ringham
(30 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government
Gov. Tim Pawlenty has drawn criticism in refusing to apply for federal grants that could have brought $1 billion or more to Minnesota. Today's Question: Should the state ever turn down federal money?
Comments (30)
I haven't seen the presidential candidate (pretending to be governor of MN) tell Minnesota to turn down federal disaster recovery funds, medicare, extended drug subsidies for seniors, highway funds, etc. etc. etc. The position seems awfully self serving to me.
Some say - oh let's not have government in our lives! Well having the governor decide what we can and cannot use federal funds for - is having government in our lives.
-CD
Should the state ever turn down federal money?
That would depend on the strings attached.
However, I don't think Pawlenty has the best judgement, especially after vetoing last year's Medical Marijuana proposal unless he was holding out for a more sensible approach like: HEMP/CANNABIS SHOULD BE LEGAL AND IT'S CRIMINALIZATION SHOULD BE RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL (AND ASININE).
It appears as though we've got a Stepford wife in the govenors house. The man that was barely elected is no longer capable of thinking about what's best for the State of MN, his political advisors are looking at what's best for a presidential candidate.
We should not be passing on the financial benefits from the Federal gov't. We've paid our fair share. Like another commented: it will be spent, it's just a matter of which state will benefit (can you say Alaska?).
I wish our Stepford govenor would stop spending our money on his travels and quit the job he's no longer doing to focus on the one he's aspiring to for 2012.
If we are competing with other states how does it help us to distribute our tax money to everyone but us? This money is getting spent make no mistake about it, the question is should we take it or let it go to someone else? Since that's our money I say we take it. I don't really care about the strings at this point, we don't have money right now and we keep paying taxes apparently for everyone but us. It is outrageous that it is only up to the lame duck governor to accept the funds.
Not right now. I am a young person and since this money is MY money (due to the fact that it is borrowed) I say we should use it. But, I really don't have a choice do I? The moron governor gets to make that decision for me, just like all the old farts got to spend my future money on two wars. Thank you babyboomers! Maybe I'll vote to eliminate your SS money. I should say my SS money, because you spent yours and mine. Oh BTW, thanks for the bright future.
"The issue of funding for sexual behavior or activity is something that should be handled by the family not the government. The dirty little secret of a successful democracy is that freedoms require personal accountability." Quote by EAL
Yup, and if you do or don't educate your kids about sexuality and the responsibility that goes with it, YOU should be financially responsible for any kids that your under-aged kids produce. Not the taxpayer.
But back to the original question: Minnesotans should apply for any federal funding they can get. After all, the citizens of this state probably pay more to the federal government than they get back in benefits.
This federal money is not a scholarship we earned that is free of strings. We have to spend money and resources to get it - we have to spend X amount of state funds, do Y amount of building of programs and Z amount of using other resources. In the future we then have to spend an even larger amount of state dollars on X, Y and Z over again to keep getting it. Sounds like a leaking sieve if you ask me, hope we can stay ahead...
How many Minnesotans would this money have helped? What percent of all people in the state? Just cause something is free or on sale doesn't mean you get it if you didnt need it?
The money taken and required to spend should benefit a majority to make it worth it. Federal money gained at the required spending of state dollars on programs that do not benefit the majority is not responsible. I agree with what Pawlenty did.
Since your question includes "ever" making this an absolute question the answer has to be Yes. There are probably offers of money that is not appropriate to a given state. Funds to support alligator controls in Minnesota should be turned down. Funds that will help Minnesota usually be accepted.
Get your question writers to not us absolutes in the questions. How about "When should Minnesota turn down (alternate wording "accept") funds from the Federal Government."
King Tim forgets that Minnesotans voted for President Obama . We should take the money , As it is ours .
Too cut off your nose to spite your face is foolish .
It is the height of hypocrisy to call those Wall Street greedy when citizens operate of the belief that if federal money is there, go for it. The issue of funding for sexual behavior or activity is something that should be handled by the family not the government. The dirty little secret of a successful democracy is that freedoms require personal accountability. If those blasting Governor Pawlenty find his decision political, ask the question, "In a free society, what aspect of your life do you not want the government involved?" Government. at all levels, cannot and should not be all things to all people. If one believes differently, that is greed.
It's one thing to oppose the new health care law on principle, to predict its failure as a policy, and to work to repeal it. I can respect that, even though I vehemently disagree. But it's quite another thing to actively sabotage it and help it fail, which is what Pawlenty is doing. How is that any different from those opponents of the Iraq war who wanted to "cut and run" instead of supporting the effort to bring about the best (or least worst) outcome after the decision was made? A decision on health care policy has been made. It's not ideal, certainly. The far-left and far-right are equally dissatisfied with it. But doesn't it behoove patriotic Americans, as with the war effort, to get behind it and help it succeed? Isn't there something unpatriotic about working to promote the failure of our nation's policies?
No. It is our tax money coming back to us, not a political football. Pawlenty has earned the Governor Goofy title away from Perpich.
I think this question is a bit too broad to be meaningful, guys. If the state was offered federal money to burn down hospitals, I think it'd be best to decline.
No, absolutely not. If Federal funding is available, the state should always look out for its best interests. Put the state's well-being ahead of personal politics.
Yes, it can be appropriate and probably is so in this case. There are some important questions: (1) how much can MN afford to spend of MN money to fix healthcare? (2) How much do we sign on to spend of our own money if we take this "gift". (3) What happens if the "gift" money stops coming? Are we still on the hook for the larger amount?
Remember, the nature of entitlement programs is that they are ratcheted by the political process (special interest groups) to only increase. It seems to take some really tough action on the part of the taxpayers to offset this ratcheting effect (that's why the Tea Party alludes to a tea party rather than being the party of "Hayeksian Economics").
Pawlenty is both smart and political to look upon this program with a jaundiced eye. The people who scream against this action apparently have no heart for the future (our children and grandchildren), just as they will accuse me of having no heart for them today.
Yes, taking money just because it is available may not be responsible to ensure a sustainable government.
Reality and people's opinion about what's real are two different things. For instance, crime has been measurably and somewhat steadily declining since about 1990 (no one knows for sure why), but polls show most people think crime is getting worse. Similarly, for three decades we've been moving demonstrably and steadily toward less regulation, freer markets, and lower taxes, but that doesn't stop right-wing demagogues from asserting that we've been drifting toward socialism, and getting hordes of gullible people to believe them. Also, similarly, the new health care law amounts to merely a moderate increase in regulation, yet lots of folks are convinced it's socialized medicine. Pawlenty is both promoting and taking advantage of a grand, widespread delusion.
One can imagine a situation in which the state should turn down federal money. However, Pawlenty's decision is another example of this governor placing his presidential ambitions ahead of the interests of the state. Our state has never been anything for him but a stepping stone to higher office. During the eight years he has been in the governor's office, the state's financial health has steadily declined. He is one of the worst governors we have ever had. The dishonesty, callousness, and lack of integrity he has demonstrated in dealing with the problems our state has faced are shocking. And Emmer would be four more years of the same, only worse.
Yes, there are cases even now where turning down federal money is appropriate. Some of the strings attached can cause problems further down the road. These federal grants are for the state do things they are not already doing. It is not money that can be used to prevent cuts, it must be used to provide new services. Also, there are often requirements that these new services be continued after the federal money goes away in a year or two. With the budget as out of whack as it currently is does it make sense to promise to spend more money we might not have?
There is the moral and ethical side of this issue. If accepting it is only for the fact that we can get so-called free money then it is wrong. It could also be considered self-fish when the thought is only for us with no regard for our country.
No regard or consideration for the strings attached is foolish. It's like signing the contract with out reading the fine print. Those strings also go far and wide often becoming a tangled web.
However it can be a case of foolish pride to refuse it if in fact we truely need the help. I do suspect Pawlenty is doing it more for political gain than an actual concern for Minnesota.
You generally don't want to say "never" when answering a question like that.
In this case turning down Federal money meant for health care, or choosing not to apply for that money is pig-headed.
Health care is not affordable. I put in about 90 hours per week working two jobs, neither of which provides health care (or any other benefits). My annual gross is about $18,000. Try providing for a family of 5 on that.
And I'm not the only Minnesotan in that situation.
Anyone who thinks the government should not step in to help Minnesotans in that situation just doesn't get it. Color your thinking; walk a mile in someone else's shoes.
No, certainly not in this circumstance! When money from the federal government comes available for very important things like healthcare, its pretty much a necessity! Particularly for the state's economic forecast right now and ongoing cuts to health and human services. But as many have said already, T-Paw's path involves climbing the political ladder; he clearly dropped the welfare of the state's citizens long ago
These health grants are intended to provide the national incubator for developing and testing strategies for promoting quality and cost-reform in health care. This is how reform is going to happen. MN has a lot to offer, but Pawlenty is taking MN brain-power out of the game -- hurting both the state and the nation only to serve his personal, political ambitions.
No. Not ever.
Yes. Federal money usually means lots of strings attached, which can possibly far outweigh the benefits.
With lawsuits pending over the legality of some or all of the Obamacare bill, it is a good choice at this time to not accept the funds.
Local and state politicians and bureaucrats love to say "Oh, we've got federal money coming!". They act like it isn't money coming out of their pockets! No one bothers to ask where the federal government is getting the money. Printing it? Borrowing from China. This money isn't free.
Local and state politicians and bureaucrats never think twice about adding more layers of administration to government. Job security and more MAPE and AFSME union members to help them out in the next election.
Leadership and making the right decision isn't always popular or easy. He did the right thing.
I agree totally with Al: play with your own money, Tim.
Why does this get to be one person's individual decision?
Ever? I'm sure I could come up with lots of hypothetical cases where it would be appropriate to turn down federal money. In this case, however, I'm appalled at Pawlenty's naked political ambition. He's putting Minnesotans' well-being in second place behind pandering to the far-right Republican base. I expect him to boast, as he runs for president, that he really gave those liberal so-and-sos in Minnesota what-for. We're nothing more to him than a rung on his ladder to higher office.
Clark's conspiracy theory about Democratic motives notwithstanding, the main reason Obama is less effective than he might otherwise be is that he's being sabotaged by distortions and lies, abetted by lots of right-wingers eager to believe those lies, and funded by big-money interests who don't want to give up the un-earned privileges they've accumulated over the last three decades. I was never prouder of my country than when we turned the page on the real worst presidency in our history by electing Obama. At last we're putting the brakes on our long downhill slide toward plutocracy.
Yes, Gov. Pawlenty made the correct choice. The states must continue to push back on obama and the other far left democrats whose primary goal is to control all areas of economic activity. Democrats are out of control and hopefully will soon be a minority party and obama a one term president ala jimmy carter. For those of us pulling the wagon, this president and congress is a disaster.
Yes, but after non-partisan review for conflict of interest.
There may be occasions when it is appropriate to turn down federal money. However, to fail to apply for federal grants as tool to advance the governor's political career is despicable. Play games with your own money governor, not ours!
| September 2010 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | ||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock