Washington Week: Student Voices (O)

Column: Gov. Perry's rejection of parts of stimulus appalling
By Jade Ortego
The Lariat, Baylor U.
February 26, 2009

Many Republican governors have vocally opposed the stimulus package that was passed by legislators last week, calling it costly and wasteful.

Texas governor Rick Perry has expressed opposition to the plan, and is now playing coy. He has accepted the $16.9 billion allotted for Texas and approved the use of money intended to fund Texas infrastructure. However, he says he is going through the package line by line in an effort to reject any money with federal strings attached or that would ultimately cost Texas money.

One aspect of the package that Perry and his staff have expressed concern over is the expansion of unemployment benefits, which would be paid for by Texas tax dollars when federal funding is depleted.

Perry hasn't, however, actually named the programs he would nix.

In a letter to President Barack Obama, Perry wrote, "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."

The Houston Chronicle reported that Waco Rep. Jim Dunham (D) criticized the governor for his ambivalence. He said, while he understood concern over the one-time nature of the grant, not accepting it would be like "not sending his daughter to college for two years if that's all he could afford."

If Perry is going to reject any stimulus money, it will be part or all of the $5.8 billion allotted for health and human services. Now more than ever Texans need assistance with Medicaid, unemployment insurance and health care, but Perry has put this money on the cutting board.

Texas ranks last when it comes to children's access to health care, and only one state, Mississippi, has more children living in poverty.

Earlier this month, Perry rejected legislation that would allow states to extend Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, to cover more families. A spokesman of the governor told the Austin-American Statesman that he saw the move as "Congress ... trying to lure cash-strapped states into expanding programs they can't afford." Clearly, "health and human services" are not a priority for our governor.

Perry also thinks additional funds for unemployment insurance is excessive.

"People living in Texas are a heck of a lot better off than the vast majority of the other ones," Perry has said. "My instinct is they'd ... rather have a good-paying job than they would unemployment insurance."

He's right about Texas being better off -- Texas is at 6 percent unemployment compared to the national average of 7.2 percent -- but unemployment in Texas gradually rose through 2008, with massive job loss in December.

We may have reasonable questions about the appropriateness of social programs in a package intended to stimulate the economy. We know, however, that healthy, fed children do better in school, and are therefore more likely to grow up, go to college and contribute to the economy with innovation and by purchasing things. Even if they didn't, though, wouldn't their health still be a priority? As much as, say, highway construction? Perry's professed dedication to a child's right to life shouldn't end with their birth.

At a press conference Obama chastised Republican governors who have criticized the bill and called their more or less genuine threats to reject the money as political posturing. "There's going to be ample time for campaigns down the road," Obama said. He's right. There's no time now for weak or non-serious conflict and procrastination when the employment rate is soaring.

There is a difference between standing by one's principles and playing politics. Expanding existing federal social programs could do nothing but help Texas. Perry is only hurting his state by rejecting any of the stimulus money, and his ideologies shouldn't be allowed to dictate the health of Texas citizens.

[ Back to Student Voices ]