Monica Davey writes in her NYTimes article "States and Cities in Scramble for Stimulus Cash" about the problems that local and state governments are going to have dealing with the massive inflow of money from President Obama's stimulus bill. This is an informational piece directed at general readers of the NYTimes to warn them of the political firestorm that will hit at the state level as governers, legislators, and mayors fight over who gets stimulus money for what projects.
While we should be concered about the logistics of the stimulus package, we should examine why strings need to be attached to the stimulus package. The amount of money coming with the stimulus package is a lot of money no doubt, but it is not unlimited. This means the money needs to go to the right places and not everyone is going to get the same amount. The states shouldn't look at stimulus money as an entitlement, but rather should be looking at this as a way to help fix the economy on the macro level. Some states that don't have an educational budget deficit feel they are being shorted because they won't recieve money for their educational programs. Should money go to programs that don't need the money, in the true sense of need? States that change Medicaid policies to save money should also look at the larger picture. Cutting Medicaid benifits and availability doesn't penalize those with money, it penalizes those without money; should states be rewarded for targetting the poor and elderly with their budget cuts? I hardly think so.
Some politicians need to take a step back and look at the big picture. They should be focusing on how the stimulus bill can benefit Americans as a whole and not turn this isn't a party divided fight about who is entitled to more money.
