*

By RICK PERRY and MARK SANFORD

As governors and citizens, we've grown increasingly concerned over the past weeks as Washington has thrown bailout after bailout at the national economy with little to show for it.

In the process, the federal government is not only burying future generations under mountains of debt. It is also taking our country in a very dangerous direction -- toward a "bailout mentality" where we look to government rather than ourselves for solutions. We're asking other governors from both sides of the political aisle to join with us in opposing further federal bailout intervention for three reasons.

First, we're crossing the Rubicon with regard to debt.

One fact that's been continually glossed over in the bailout debate is that Washington doesn't have money in hand for any of these proposals. Every penny would be borrowed. Estimates for what the government is willing to spend on bailouts and stimulus efforts for this year reach as much as $7.7 trillion according to Bloomberg.com -- a full half of the United States' yearly economic output.

With all the zeroes in the numbers, it's no wonder Washington politicians have lost track.

That trillion-dollar figure is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to checks written by the federal government that it can't cash. Former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker puts our nation's total debt and unpaid promises, like Social Security, at roughly $52 trillion -- an invisible mortgage of $450,000 on every American household. Borrowing money to "solve" a problem created by too much debt seems odd. And as fiscally conservative Republicans, we take no pleasure in pointing out that many in our own party have been just as complicit in running up the tab as those on the political left.

Second, the bailout mentality threatens Americans' sense of personal responsibility.

In a free-market system, competition and one's own personal stake motivate people to do their best. In this process, the winners create wealth, jobs and new investment, while others go back to the drawing board better prepared to try again.

To an unprecedented degree, government is currently picking winners and losers in the private marketplace, and throwing good money after bad. A prudent investor takes money from low-yield investments and puts them in those that yield better returns. Recent government intervention is doing the opposite -- taking capital generated from productive activities and throwing it at enterprises that in many cases need to reorganize their business model.

Take for example the proposed Big Three auto-maker bailout. We think it's very telling that each of the three CEO's flew on their own private jets to Washington to ask for a taxpayer handout. No amount of taxpayer largess could fix a business culture so fundamentally flawed.

Third, we'd ask the federal government to stop believing it has all the answers.

Our Founding Fathers were clear and deliberate in setting up a system whereby the federal government would only step in for that which states cannot do themselves. An expansionist federal government of the last century has moved us light-years away from that model, but it doesn't mean that Congress can't learn from states that are coming up with solutions that work.

In Texas and South Carolina, we've focused on improving "soil conditions" for businesses by cutting taxes, reforming our legal system and our workers' compensation system. We'd humbly suggest that Congress take a page from those playbooks by focusing on targeted tax relief paid for by cutting spending, not by borrowing.

In the rush to do "something" to help, federal leaders would be wise to take a line from the Hippocratic Oath, and pledge to do no (more) harm to our country's finances. We can weather this storm if we commit to fiscal prudence and hold true to the values of individual freedom and responsibility that made our nation great.

Mr. Perry, a Republican, is the governor of Texas. Mr. Sanford, a Republican, is the governor of South Carolina.

Article dated 12/02/08!

A little over a month and a half before Obama became President and almost 3 before he did anything.
The article is irrelevant to the thread!

Since,
Sanford said he'd take the money if he could use it to pay off his States outstanding debts, (Obama says No!) and Perry has accepted nearly all the 1.3 billion for Texas.

Hypocrites, both of them.
Both care more for their own ambitions than the welfare of their States citizens.

Oh.
The date of the article.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122818170073571049.html

Last year just a couple of months before Obama became our president, my city officials informed us at a meeting that they lost track of 2 million dollars I believe they said. The people at the meeting were furious because we had to make up for that crapola. And we always seem to have to make up for the doings of people in charge. I do worry that we are creating a situation where why bother doing the right thing, we will get bailed out anyway. That does worry me but it did with Bush too, and both parties.

So how do we know this won't create the same mentality?

I don't pretend to know politics and the games played but I would like a decent answer to that.

February 18, 2009

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I'm writing you today in response to stipulations set forth in H.R. 1, the $787 billion stimulus package you signed into law yesterday. As you know, I have been vocal in my opposition to this legislation because I believe there are better ways to reinvigorate our economy and believe H.R. 1 will burden future generations with unprecedented levels of debt.

Throughout the years, Texas taxpayers have sent substantially more dollars to Washington than we receive on issues ranging from transportation to border security and hurricane relief. As I have said during the debate on H.R. 1, should Congress pass stimulus legislation using Texas tax dollars, I would work to ensure that our citizens receive their fair share.

On behalf of the people of Texas, please allow this letter to certify that we will accept the funds in H.R. 1 and use them to promote economic growth and create jobs in a fiscally responsible manner that is in the best interest of Texas taxpayers. I remain opposed to using these funds to expand existing government programs, burdening the state with ongoing expenditures long after the funding has dried up.

I continue to believe that the best way to stimulate the economy is the approach we are taking here in Texas. As a result of low taxes, controlled government spending and a predictable regulatory climate, nearly 80 percent of all jobs created last year in the United States were created in Texas; the vast majority of these were private sector jobs. Just last week, Texas was ranked the top exporting state in the nation for the seventh year in a row.

It was a pleasure meeting you in Philadelphia, and I appreciate your concern for the Texans displaced by Hurricane Ike. While we differ on solutions to the ongoing economic crisis facing our country, I believe we both share a desire to see our great nation endure as a beacon of freedom and economic vitality to the world.

Sincerely,
Rick Perry
Governor

http://governor.state.tx.us/news/press-release/11969/

I dont agree with you,
but I'll take the money! LMAO!!!!

At least he was smart enough to accept it.

Or should I say he didnt have the balls that Sanford had?


Im so confused. The only thing I know is they are both hypocrites!

Who would care what happens in SC, except the idiots that live there?

If you have been following the story he doesn't want to take the money because it would mean that the white house would re-write all of their unumployment laws.There is also a few other states that will not take the money.I support any state that doesn't want a hand out from the government and can stand up for it's own.It's too bad more states can't can't figure out how to cut spending instead of dumping a great pile of trash in front of the White house and telling our government to clean up the mess.South carolina you got balls.If you pull this off you will get more respect than any other state.Of course if you fail it would be nothing less than pushing your state off a ledge down to a rocky cliff.Either way I salute you!

Rose, if you follow the chain of events, since JFK, the way the Gov has been seizing more control and taking away more rights, you'll see, there is no difference in Politicians. They pick up the agenda of the previous and carry the torch. This new one here is so popular with people, he has been able to gain more ground towards more Gov. control.
When States accept Federal Funds, that gives the Fed more say in how States are run.
Like a business. If I invest in your business, the more I invest, the more say I have in how it's run. If I gain over 50% interest, you have no say, I control how it's run. You then, work for me. You lose your sovereignty.

Fourm out of 50 and they all have Republican Governors!

None of them refused all the money.
Even in SC Sanford took all but 700 million of the 2.3 billion!

I see no issue with it. I wish more would refuse the funds.

This "stimulus" bill grows government. period. It expands healthcare and unemployment benefits among others for a few years - past that, it's all up to the state to provide that coverage. Do you really think any state will be able to repeal these new standards in 5 years?

Not allowing someone to have something in the first place makes it much easier on them than if you give them a little and take it away. The states are already going broke, forcing the expansion of government will lead to further failures and tax increases at the state level.

Didn't you read the op?

The citizens of SC find it a big deal.