Southern Republican Governors Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Rick Perry of Texas, and Mark Sanford of South Carolina are making noises about "refusing" federal dollars from President Barack Obama's economic stimulus package. They are posturing in a way reminiscent of an earlier generation of Southern governors who stood for "states' rights," which was a euphemism for Jim Crow racial segregation. Given that these GOP governors preside over the nation's "black belt," Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina accurately called their obstructionist stance "a slap in the face of African Americans."
Haley Barbour, before winning the governorship of Mississippi was a high-powered Washington lobbyist and a former chair of the Republican National Committee. When he's not attending barbeques hosted by the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens (C of CC) he's figuring out new ways to tax poor people while denying them government aid. Mississippi has the most regressive tax structure in the country and is ranked 50th among the states for per capita spending on social programs.
Bobby Jindal is the Indian-American rising star of the Republican Party. To prove himself to the country club set he adheres to the harshest of anti-poor ideologies. Jindal is also a right-wing Christian fundamentalist who calls for teaching "intelligent design" in public schools. His talk radio conservatism is tinged with the fanaticism of someone who comes from a "subaltern" group. Jindal's immigrant background leads him to compare his own experience to that of African Americans and conclude that the black community must be inherently dysfunctional. Jindal must distance himself from the first African-American president or he'll jeopardize his lilywhite political base and dash his presidential ambitions, and what better way to do so than to posture against federal aid?
And don't forget Texas Governor Rick Perry. A mad executioner like his predecessor, Perry is closing in on his 200th execution since taking office (George W. Bush only managed 152, but both governors hold national records). Perry also vetoed a measure that would prohibit executing mentally retarded people. "At a time when the country -- including Texas -- is opening its eyes to the problems that plague capital punishment," Larry Cox, executive director of Amnesty International USA said, "Governor Perry has chosen to remain blind to its flaws, further tarnishing Texas' human rights reputation." The vast majority of inmates Perry (as well as Bush) put to death were blacks and Hispanics.
And then there's Mark Sanford who rose out of Strom Thurmond's Republican Party in South Carolina with an abysmal record on all issues affecting the lives of African Americans. His policies always somehow benefit the well-healed white folks in his state while leaving behind everybody else. Governor Sanford proudly flies the Confederate flag over the South Carolina state house, a fitting tribute to the rise of the Neo-Confederacy. On that score, Sanford must be the new Jefferson Davis.
These Neo-Confederate governors are following in the tradition of President Andrew Johnson of the Reconstruction era. Johnson vetoed over twenty pieces of legislation that would have created a set of federal institutions in the former Confederacy to help guide the transition from slavery to freedom of four million former slaves. Today, the Neo-Confederacy obstructs the federal government's attempt to alleviate some of the suffering of the descendants of those slaves even while the nation endures its worst economic disaster in 70 years. These Southern governors are even refusing federal help to continue unemployment benefits for tens of thousands of people who have recently lost their jobs. Now that's pretty harsh!
But there's hope. The Department of Justice has the tools to bring Southern obstructionist governors in line as it did in the 1960s. "There's a new sheriff in town," and there are plenty of federal statutes on the books protecting the rights of poor people and minorities that Attorney General Eric Holder could enforce far more vigorously than his Republican predecessors.
The process of Southernizing the Republican Party has reached a more advanced stage after the election of the first African American President. What began in 1968 with Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" continued to mature through the Reagan years and the Newt Gingrich "revolution" until, in the 2000s, George W. Bush, Tom DeLay, and Bill Frist brought it to apotheosis. The Southern wing and its Sunbelt allies gave the Rockefeller Republicans the heave-ho leaving only a distilled rump party filled with ideologues, zealots, and "Ditto-Heads"; note the inordinate hostility aimed at Olympia Snow, Susan Collins, and Arlen Specter for voting for the stimulus bill. Vacuums in political leadership never last long. And some of the most backward elements in our political discourse are poised to take control of one of our nation's major parties. "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice," Barry Goldwater famously said. But it might be bad politics. In 1933, when Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated the Republicans had 36 Senators and 117 House seats; four years later, when FDR began his second term, the Republicans had 16 Senators and 88 House seats.
Of course, the madness is not limited to the South. The state of California is reeling after six years of a Republican governor and an obstructionist Republican minority in the legislature. Arnold Schwarzenegger came to power through a circus-like, GOP-financed "recall" election, where Gary Coleman and a porn star also ran, for the sole purpose of stroking his overblown ego. Schwarzenegger's abysmal record coupled with the crippling Republican "supermajority" needed to pass budgets means the Golden State ain't so golden anymore.
When "the Terminator" came to power the state's budget deficit was about one-fourth the size it is now and he failed to get any federal help from his "good friend" George W. Bush. He spent most of his political capital trying to privatize the public employee pension system and break the teachers' and nurses' unions. He spent a lot of time in 2008 out on the stump campaigning for John McCain and Sarah Palin. Most recently he couldn't even get members of his own party to vote for the desperately needed budget.
The devastated U.S. economy is tearing families apart and the cutbacks at the state level are coming at exactly the wrong time. The California Republican Party is every bit as backward and reactionary as its Southern counterparts. California Republicans are up in arms because a handful of GOP legislators voted to keep the state from going belly up. They were apparently willing to let the state hemorrhage $400 million halting construction projects rather than show "bipartisanship." Like their brethren in the Neo-Confederacy, California's Sunbelt Republicans would rather see the state drop off into the Pacific Ocean than take the step of raising taxes on their wealthy friends or give a helping hand to those who are suffering in these terrible economic times.
It is interesting that Sanford's point behind this demonstration -- staged in front of the South Carolina statehouse almost four years ago -- was to symbolize obstructionism.
The Dixiecrats are now trying to tell us that Bobby Jindal's miserable performance responding to President Obama's speech was just a fluke--he was having a bad hair day, or something. They fool no one but themselves. Bobby Jindal is the poster boy for the Dixiecrat yahoos that now constitute the voice of conservatism in America.
It's interesting that the writer is so critical of the various governors for being implictly racist when Sen Robert Byrd (D-WV) belonged to a rather exclusionary club and even filibustered for 14 hours in opposition to the 1964 civil rights bill.
However, one must realize something critical: The Constitution does mean something. If through interpretation we can cause it to mean whatever we want it to mean (a la "a living, breathing Constitution" that can be reinterpreted by judges to hold unenumerated powers or rights) then it has no real meaning. The Founders had intended for the Constitution to limit, not empower, the nascent republic. This is why it took an amendment to the Constitution in order to even have an income tax.
One is hard-pressed to see how the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause grant the government the right to extensively enter our lives as much as it does. These clauses only existed to give the federal government basic functionality, not give it license to enter into every facet of our existence. Indeed, Madison argued this in Federalist 44. Sadly, he believed that the state intermediaries between federal power and the people of the several states would make it easier to prevent or reverse usurption of powers vested in the people at the federal level than at the state level. Experience has shown that with more distance from the people, powers become more entrenched and harder to combat.
Cutting taxs for the rich, creating tax havens over seas, sending American jobs to China, while paying for two wars comes at a price.
Its an interesting that right wing republicans are all for creating huge debt national debt (see Ronald Reagan and George Bush Jr. ) but bulk at paying these bills. Its even more interesting that so many states dominated by conservatives, particularly in the south are states who cannot practice what they preach. They scream socialism if they raise taxes on the uber wealthy , but yet these states take in much more in federal dollars than they send to Washington.
AKA they take money from the wealthy states.
By definition that's socialism isn't it? There fore the biggest socialists in the nation are the conservative southern republicans who like to talk the talk but can't walk the walk...
Now we have to jack up taxes and cut spending drastically, making CA an even less desirable place to live. Anti-tax conservative absolutists and gluttonous liberal big spenders are both at fault, and, as usual, just blaming one side may make the partisan feel better but it doesn't help you to figure out how to avoid the problem in the future.
Now here we are.
I just find it interesting that the very people who have taken us to this point, are the ones slamming the President.. All the talking heads at FOX and Fox Business Channel, who cheered on the previous administrations domestic financial policies, and every Ralph Kramden esque money making scheme coming out of Wall Street without considering the consequences, the Republicans who ran Congress from 1994-2006, who suddenly have a really good plan to fix things, but never came up with anything except more tax cuts, more tax cuts when they ran the show.
I'm willing to give this a try and see what happens because obviously the politics and policies of the last eight dollars have totally failed us.
And for the GOP they will continue to unravel even further by becoming the party of "No"
One of the biggest lies by some Republicans is that the government is the boogey man while they are taking our money for their own uses and getting handouts of our money. I have a job but I do not begrudge my fellow citizen from getting his or her money from the government to help them survive.
Thomas Jefferson pretty well covered much about our situation today in two quotes made by him over 200 years ago. Our founders fathers feared what we are living today:
1. “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”
2. “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”*
I don’t think the presidenr's clueless. I think he knows EXACTLY what he is doing. HE was tutored by communists and making a career of destroying the productive for benefit to the leeches. No, he knows what he is doing, alright. STIMULUS deprives YOUR children/adult/vets of meds and leaves you to SILENCE the SCREAMS without meds rather than pass HR 219 AND 236 to protect SOC SEC for military and non-military and vets lockbox law and cola to protect medicare WITHOUT RAISING taxes, and WITHOUT cutting services.
Your words have been said in slightly different terms - the gop is bankrupt of ideas, logic, and morals.
So Mr. President, PLEASE tell me how and why you invest so much time in trying to consider their demands as if they are useful, reasoned, or of value? There are a few who have some common sense - but you can count them on one hand.... and I wouldn't turn my back on any of them for a second.
Was your post MEANT TO BE FACETIOUS? Because I found it confusing. You don't like 'commies', yet you would like your VA BENEFITS to remain at the same level (which is a... uh,oh... a socialist program) WITHOUT THE INCONVENIENCE OF RAISED TAXES? Ah. Sounds like a TYPICAL 'COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE' . YOU WANT YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO, AS LONG AS SOMEBODY ELSE HAS TO PAY FOR IT!'
When, when, have we ever seen anything like this??? That was rhetorical. The answer is NEVER !!!!!!!!!!!
Is this BIPARTISAN enough for the Republi-rats ??????
I am glad that I live in a state that our Gov plans to accept the funds.
The states really need it, and I hope those states that are refusing it understand that it will be their Gov's fault, and only their Gov's fault, when they lose more jobs and their infrastructure disintegrates.
Good going Pubs.
I do feel that if they decide to put up such a stink over the stimulus, then they shouldn't get it once it is issued. They shouldn't be allowed to change their minds.
It's like the fat guy at yout table in the restaraunt that grabs food off your plate when you are kind of full, and then kind of looks with a half-innocent/half-expectant look, saying "Oh, were you going to eat/finish that?"
The contact lists from the Obama campaign could easily be used to organize the African-American community across the South to block the re-election, or better yet, recall these governors.
I got a question, Joey. I'll start with your statement.
["These Southern governors are even refusing federal help to continue unemployment benefits for tens of thousands of people who have recently lost their jobs. Now that's pretty harsh!"]
Q) Now the Rethuglicans who seem to have a problem with this (Jindal, Sanders, Barber et al), keep invoking the fact of it being an "unfunded mandate". I think I understand what there compaining about, but I want to be sure. The MSM is naturally not going to expand the explanation because they get more mileage out of Shandra Levi.
(This actually happened. Joe Johns on CNN as he was talking about that Ft Lauderdale situation I alluded to, went seamlessly into the Levi story after playing a clip about Florida. It was absolutely stunning.)
But I digress; the question. My guess that what they object to is that if they take this money, subsequent to when it runs out (2-3 yrs), they will be held to a standard of unemployment coverage that they are loathe to accept. Do I have this right?