Apparently, one-tenth of one percent is too much money spend tracking, ah, your money. The states are now starting to complain that they don't have enough money to track and publicize all the spending they're doing:
When it comes to the $787 billion in federal stimulus money flowing from Washington to the states, it will cost money to spend money.
Nebraska's governor's office told lawmakers it expects to spend more than $1.2 million over two years to oversee disbursement of about $1.5 billion Nebraska stands to receive in federal stimulus funds.
Other states, including Colorado, are in similar straits. But Washington — at least for now — isn't handing out money for states to hire auditors and accountants, and the stimulus law requires stringent reporting from states to ensure transparency and curb abuses.
Among the questions the Post and the AP decided not ask were:
- Why not take the money out of the state programs being supplemented? Don't these states already have offices devoted to tracking spending?
- Why didn't Governor Ritter think of this before he agreed to take "all of it," that is all of what was available?
- Why didn't our representatives think of this before voting for this bill? Aside from, you know, the fact that they apparently didn't read the bill.
- If transparency is important for stimulus spending, why are the state Democrats blocking actual transparency in both school and the general budget?
You can see why having local newspapers around is so critical to a functioning democracy.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Looks Like
April 17, 2009 - 09:41 ET by kilrodLooks like those gov.'s need to be thinking about the 10th amendment??
(Why didn't our representatives think of this before voting for this bill? Aside from, you know, the fact that they apparently didn't read the bill. )
Just a thought; Is passing a bill without reading it even constitutional?? Could each sen./rep. be taken to court for not discharging the duties they swore to do when they were sworn into office??
kilrod
Remember, only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American Soldier
Control
April 17, 2009 - 09:45 ET by ArcherBLike I've said before:
Whoever pays the bills is in control. If government pays for your health care, they can tell you what to eat, what treatment you can receive, how much to exercise, what doctor you can see and so on. When the feds pay for education, they can dictate what is taught, how it's taught and who can teach it. More importantly, they can dictate what is NOT taught, and who can NOT teach it!
The government takes you money and then gives it back to you with conditions attached. That's extortion!
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary."
--Ernesto "Che" Guevara
A variation on the Liberal
April 17, 2009 - 09:47 ET by NL207A variation on the Liberal Golden Rule: The one who has the gold makes the rules.
Some more thought to poner>
April 18, 2009 - 10:12 ET by fastfoodSome more thought to ponder.
Why not toss out doctor-patient privilege? After all, the government, no longer “We The People” would be paying the tab.
Why not impose forced abortions and sterilizations on pregnant mothers to be? After all, the government, no longer “We The People” would have to pay for pre/post natal care for these mothers and provide medical care etc for these pesky fellow Human off-spring.
And why not throw out attorney-client privilege when an accused must use the services of a public defender? After all, the government, no longer “We The People” must pay for it.
AP didn't forget...
April 17, 2009 - 10:37 ET by sdb... they just didn't bother. The answers would have dire consequences for those who pushed the stimulus through too fast for anyone to read it.
Some Answers
April 17, 2009 - 11:12 ET by dirtmound- Why not take the money out of the state programs being supplemented?
**Because most of the stimulus money has rules about supplementation
versus supplantation. Supplantation is when the stimulus money is used
to REPLACE funds that would normally have been spent on the
already-existing programs. Most of the stipulations on the money
prohibit this. Supplementation is when the stimulus money is being used
to EXPAND the program. So, most of the Stimulus money is being used to
expand programs that already exist, to a broader base of
customers/recipients/whatever.
We can't take the money out of already-exisiting program funds to track
stimulus money, because all the money set aside to track that program
only accounts for the ORIGINAL amount. It takes a lot of extra manpower
to track/report on several additional millions of dollars. Not to
mention, the stimulus money has SO MANY reporting requirements that it
is a lot of extensive work to get things set up right, and to be sure
items are being coded correctly in the accounting systems, etc, and then
the reporting/filing/etc of it all.
Don't these states already have offices devoted to tracking spending?
**Because those areas are already working at maximum ability to track
and report on grants we already receive. Throwing in these additional
items that require even more in-depth reporting either makes everything
else less accurate (causes the loss of funds in future years, as most
grants are based on previous usage to determine new grant amounts),
overtime (increases funds paid for payroll, that we don't extra have to
spend), runs the risk of missing some key reporting category (which may
lead to the state/agency having to pay back stimulus funds or regular
grant funds because they appear to have been misspent), etc.
Another Unfunded Mandate
April 17, 2009 - 11:49 ET by BlueCat57Yet another unfunded government mandate.
And the governors refusing the money are wrong how?
They don't want to expand the programs in their states because they know that "shrinking government" is an oxymoron.