Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
South Carolina's Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Gov. Mark Sanford must accept $700 million in federal stimulus money, ending the only formal effort by a governor to reject funding intended to jump-start an ailing economy.
Students and education officials in South Carolina filed lawsuits demanding that the governor take the money. Sanford tried to have those suits merged and heard in federal court.
On Monday, however, a federal judge rejected that effort, and said that the South Carolina Supreme Court must decide what to do.
In its ruling, the state's highest court said the legislature, not Sanford, has the power to decide whether to accept the federal stimulus money.
that money is as worthless as the paper it's printed on.
Yes, but somehow he was pretty sure the state's creditors were willing to accept it.
cleanhouse (apparently without any sense of irony) wrote;
Quote:
Too bad these students and education officials will be sadly dissapointed when the corruption prevents any funds from going to education.
And I'm sure you have proof of this corruption.
Wait a minute, how can there be any corruption in a state with a Republican governor and a Republican legislature? Or has Obama's secret army installed Democrats in all offices and the Governor doesn't know it?
What changes would those be? There is no requirement in the stimulus bill that requires the continuance of any program funded through the program.
If you don't know the answer to your own question, i'd suggest you take a few courses in history and state/local government. The fact that you'd even pose the question is an embarrassment to you.
How are they going to do when the state from here on out has to pay higher unemployement payouts?
The Treasury Department has repeatedly stated that the state can set a sunshine limit on increased unemployment benefits once the stimulus funding ceases.
If you don't know the answer to your own question, i'd suggest you take a few courses in history, and state/local government. The fact that you'd even pose the question should be embarrassing to you.
I know that answer, just wondering if and when you might present a evidence based argument.
By the way, Sanford was more than happy to take the money to pay off South Carolina's debt, he just didn't like the idea of spending it on the state's residents and the Republican lead legislature didn't like that idea.
Yeah, but that goes against the buy now pay later mentality of the country, much like the roaring 20's. Better to leave the SC debt alone and spend EVEN MORE!
I know that answer, just wondering if and when you might present a evidence based argument.
Next?
If you know the answer, then why pose the question? Are you suggesting that none of us know the answer?
The acceptance of stimulus funds will require some states to change state law in order to carry out the obligations of accepting the funds. When the funds run out, the state law is still in place and the obligation is still there. Perhaps you'll understand this elementary explanation.
Why do you insist on playing kindergarten games?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
