TNR's Krieger described Huntsman as "one of the only Republican governors" to accept stimulus funds -- but they all did
SUMMARY: A New Republic article wrongly described Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. as "one of the only Republican governors to accept money from Obama's stimulus package." In fact, all Republican governors have requested and received funds from the stimulus package.
In a May 20 article for The New Republic on Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., whom President Obama has selected as his nominee to be U.S. ambassador to China, deputy online editor Zvika Krieger wrongly described Huntsman as "one of the only Republican governors to accept money from Obama's stimulus package." In fact, all Republican governors have requested funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
State certifications from the governors of all 50 states indicating that they will request and use recovery funds are posted at Recovery.gov. Indeed, every state, including those with Republican governors, has received at least some recovery funds. For example, according to a quarterly progress report on progress in implementing the recovery act, submitted to the president and released May 13, "All but three states, Hawaii, North Dakota, and New Mexico, had begun drawing down FMAP [Federal Medical Assistance Percentages] funds by May 5th. North Dakota began drawing down funds on May 8th." Hawaii and New Mexico have reportedly received recovery funds as well.
Some Republican governors, including Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, have requested access to funding available through the recovery act, but have rejected small portions of the funding. And on May 19, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford -- the final governor to request recovery funding, sending the certification on the deadline day -- "vetoed state budget sections compelling him to spend stimulus funds, saying the budget failed to put South Carolina in a better post-stimulus financial position, and that it wasted a once-in-a-generation chance to make much-needed reforms to state government."
From the May 20 The New Republic article, headlined "Huntsman, Interrupted":
Hanging up the phone, Huntsman quickly ducks into a meeting with his council of economic and policy advisors, where he follows up on his office's efforts at health care reform and developing a statewide plan for energy efficiency. Huntsman, leaning back in a plush leather chair, fires off questions on the most technical aspects of these initiatives, seeming more like a CEO than a politician. It's a habit he picked up while a student at Wharton and at the helm of the Huntsman Corporation (Utah's largest company), not to mention as a deputy assistant secretary in the commerce department under George H. W. Bush and a deputy U.S. trade representative under President George W. Bush. To Huntsman, the economy should be a politician's "focus, laser-like," despite the fact that it doesn't "make for a very colorful and interesting sideshow."
Huntsman is certainly right: His skillful stewardship of the state's economy is not what propelled him onto the national stage. Huntsman, who was elected in 2004 as a fairly conventional Republican campaigning on a platform of economic development, first began breaking with his party over environmental issues--for instance, signing the bold Western Regional Climate Action Initiative. He then started taking relatively progressive stands on immigration, unions, and education. He is also one of the only Republican governors to accept money from Obama's stimulus package. "Limited government is important," Huntsman explains, "but I need to make sure that we have a government that actually delivers on issues that people expect us to manage competently and well."
Now we have ushered in the new era of "change we can believe in." We voted for these idiots too. They have not dissapointed. President Obama has promptly sent our deficit spending into unprecedented irresponsibility. He himself has admited that his economic policies are unsustainable. He has taken control of the banking and mortgage industries umder facist policies. He has socialised the auto industry and illegally given it to the UAW. And soon he will nationalise health care. He will fly in the face of the spirit of our country by bestowing rights granted by government that government can not provide with out infringing the rights of most of we Americans.
No, I don't know why we have voted for any of these idiots. They are ALL out for themselves. NONE of them give one bit of thought for the good of this great country or its wonderful people. The only way out of this mess is to find candidates for public office who cherish our constitution and give oaths to protect and abide by it.
When did the unions cross the line to being more concerned with power than the workers. How were they able to hide this information for their fellow union members when you so easily find it? A union without any power is a pretty useless thing. Other than to say,"Yes sir,yes sir. Right away sir."
Nice side step on the medical issue. The auto makers had no input on legacy costs?
I worked in a federal shipyard for over a quarter of a century as a union worker. We were proud of our ability to get difficult jobs done on buget, or better. The shipyard acutally made money on some projects, recycling decomisioned nuclear ships and subs. selling our expertise and people, to other national sites and one comercial yard, Newport News.
Do to political pressure we saw more and more private contractors doing our work. most were non-union, and of little if any an economic benifit for the shipyard. Many eventually became competitent after studying how we did their jobs. Dispite the lower wages that their workers recieve, their still not noticably cheaper than we were. Wonder how that worked?
I'm sure the ford story has more details than your willing to give. Define how they were more qualified to inspect what? Your words mix singular and plural in a way that I can't interpet.
Looks like you've got the medical talking points down. How many socialist medical systems exist, and why is their service considered better than ours. Basic socialistic health care is only good for bandaids and asperin? You really want to stand with that statement?
Why are you so opposed to allowing workers any effective voice? Amittedly, on the ocasion idiotic union leadership is not unknown. There are ways to deal with it that do not involve throwing out the whole union concept.