If a state doesn't have a balanced budget, there are only two ways to fix it - Either by cutting spending, or raising more revenue, meaning taxes. California already has about the highest income and sales taxes in the nation. It also had about the highest percent recent increase in budget spending in the nation (something like 40% growth in the last four years).

That spending growth was based on revenue windfalls from California's recent (maybe mythical) economic boom. So when the state's economy tanked, and the tax revenues with it, don't you think it would be prudent for California to cut spending back to what it was a few years ago? And don't you think maybe, just maybe, there's a lot of fat in the state's spending that could be prudently cut, without really "creaming" education? Why do you think just increaing taxes to support past levels of spending is the "easy way?" Or don't you pay those taxes?

How about an arrangement that if a state doesn't take the stimulus funds, then their citizens are not responsible for that part of the federal debt, and will pay correspondingly less future federal taxes? No deal, right? Can't work that way, right? That being the case, I really don't see any hypocrisy in the GOP governors taking the funds, even though they were against the whole deal to begin with (despite certain stimulus supporters trying to claim the opposite).

I think we went through that already about 144 years ago as to whether states could go their own way when they disagreed with the actions of the federal government. That being the case, its a bit moronic to criticize the "red" states taking the stimulus federal spending, since they are indeed still stuck with the resulting debt they didn't want.

As I remember, the present Secretary of State, as well as the Democratic congressional leadership, also voted for Bush's war and the related spending. You might also consider that the stimulus bill, plus the other bailout spending under Obama, is now bigger then all of Bush's eight years of Iraq spending. And by the way, if government deficit spending is so good for the economy, why didn't that large Republican deficit spending keep the economy from tanking on their watch?

The spending on Iraq/Afghanistan was something like 800 billion dollars over eight years. The two companys you mentioned (Halliburton and Exxon) got contracts worth only a few percent of that money combined. Both are large corporations, and their Iraq work was a small fraction of their revenues all during that time. Look it up yourself.

They and all the Iraq contractors (literally tens of thousands of companies large and small were contractors and subcontractors) used that money to pay salaries, make investments in plant and facilities, to pay for products, to pay local taxes, to pay dividends to their shareholders (many of whom were peoples holdiing shares in 401 K plans), etc. In short they spread that money all through the economy, just like the stimulus spending is supposed to do. The only difference is that it went in the direction of the Republicans' supporters and special interest groups, rather than the Democrats' supporters and special interest groups, as with the stimulus bill.

If you think spending on the Democrats' prioities is money better spent (as with the stimulus bill), I'd (mostly) agree with you on that. But claiming the Bush spending didn't stimulate the economy because it all went to a few people's pockets (or in Cheney's matress) is silly and just isn't supported by the facts. Defense spending is spread through the economy just as efficiently as government spending through most other sectors (as shown by the WW2 spending contributing to ending the Great Depression).

The construction of Hoover Dam began in 1931. The construction of the Golden Gate Bridge began in 1933. So both were indeed famous depression-era infrastucture stimulus projects. When they were "authorized" or "planned," as laid out in your article, is irrelevant. Until the depression, they never got off the ground. Both projects were (smartly) chosen during the depression as projects already "in the pipeline" to maximize the stimulus spending effectiveness (sound familiar?).

This is what the South Carolina governor meant, and that was his point in discussing these projects, as you know. You're just looking to attack him because he's a Republican and has been criticizing the Democrats' stimulus bill.

Joe Biden, famously, during an interview with Katie Kouric during the vice-presidential campaign, talked about "FDR, when the stock market crashed, getting on the TV...." If you don't believe me, just google it and find the video link.

So there's plenty of fodder for foolish anti-Democratic, as well as anti-Republican, name calling and rants about "revisionist history" if that's what we all want to do. Of course, we could have a serious discusion on serious issues in these very serious times instead.

I'm with you all the way. Can't we get BOTH the Democrats and Republicans to do that? I honestly think President Obama wants that, and he'll help lead us out of this mess if given a fair chance by everyone.