"This is Bad, Filthy Money, Folks": Ohio's Warren County Flips Off Feds, Rejects Stimulus Dollars

In a far-flung corner of the empire (near Toledo, no less!), in a galaxy a long, long time ago, the rebellion beginneth:

Warren County commissioners say they don't want more than $2 million in federal stimulus funds offered to the county to pay for transit and "green" projects.

The county refused to take $373,000 set aside by the Ohio Department of Transportation to purchase three shuttle vans for the county transit program and a computer-based program to schedule rides requested by residents.

"This is bad, filthy money, folks," Commissioner Mike Kilburn said March 17, when the commissioners voted unanimously not to accept transit dollars. "This is money we don't have."…

Kilburn went further: "Stop spending money you don't have and start being accountable to the taxpayers. God only asked for 10%, why do the politicians in Washington D.C. think they deserve more than 40%?" …

"If we want it that bad, we'll do it on our own," Warren County Commissioner David Young said Tuesday. "I don't think people understand how much money we are talking about here."…

According to Young, a representative from Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown's office called the Warren County's clerk of commissioners about a month ago and announced: "Congrats, you get $1.8 million."

"I told her (the clerk) to call them back and tell them we don't want it; we didn't apply for it; is there any way of literally not borrowing this money?" Young said.

Young reportedly doesn't only want Warren County to reject the $$$; he wants the feds to use it to retire the national debt.

More here, from the AP via the Cincy Enquirer (Hat tip: Dan Hayes).

Related: Ohio, like 31 other states, actually gets more from the federal government than it sends there in all taxes. According to the Tax Foundation using data from fiscal year 2005, the Buckeye State pulls in $1.05 for every buck mailed to D.C. And it's a theme we've hit on before, but many of the bluest of blue states (New York, New Jersey, California, Massachusetts) are the ones getting screwed on that money flow.

Comments

[MNG]

I think it's something like malpractice for folks to reject the money alloted to their constituents.

If you were CEO of a company that were awarded a government grant that would improve the returns for your holders you'd be in violation of a fiduciary duty to them to reject it on ideological grounds. Same here.

By all means, as a citizen and politician, rail against this stuff passing. But after it passed, refusing to take s chunck for your area is egregious.

[MNG]

"take a chunk for your area"

[robc]

MNG,

Fed money comes with strings attached. As some CEOs have learned. That may make the grant money have net negative value.

Also, re: the corporate example, it depends on the corporate charter. A company, even a private one, with well laid out principles can refuse to do business that violates those principles. For example, the Family Channel could refuse a large ad buy from Playboy, even though it might be in their best fiduciary interest.

[robc]

I have defended Ron Paul getting his chunk for his district, so I get your point. But I dont have a problem with the opposite approach either.

[Blue]

"If we want it that bad, we'll do it on our own,"

Like music to my ears. And MNG, will the feds pay for gas and manintenance of those vans? For the drivers' pensions (probably, but that is next months crisis)?

Maybe communities that refuse the filthy lucre should get a "Debt Credit" for when the ponzi scheme goes tits up. That is, the cannibals will eat them last.

[? Libertarian]

MNG's point is interesting. If a federal law passed re-segregating public schools, is it malpractice for a local executive to refuse to enforce it?

[The Angry Optimist]

MNG, it is reasonable and responsible to reject the money, because the subsequent maintenance on the federally-paid-for projects, even if one dollar, is one more dollar in spending that cities didn't have in their budget previously.

Example: If the feds give you 100 million to build a light rail, what happens afterward when running the light rail costs say, 2 million a year? That's 2 million you're spending that you would not have spent.

Anyway, Mr. Gillespie, Warren County isn't really near Toledo. Given the religious overtones of the Commissioner, you should have thrown up Touchdown Jesus.

[John]

"By all means, as a citizen and politician, rail against this stuff passing. But after it passed, refusing to take s chunck for your area is egregious."

That first assumes that the money actually does the area good. That is a big assumption. Generally this kind of money goes to a few connected contractors and that is about it. If federal government money really did that much good, why isn't John Murtha's distrcict or West Virginia would be economic juggernauts.

Second, it takes away any sense of morality in government. If the government got into the slave trading business and tried to pass some of the billions onto state and local communities, would it be aggregous for communities to turn the money down on moral grounds? If so, how is it aggregous to turn down money on the moral grounds that it is irresponsibly stolen from future generations? Yes, running up debt is not as immoral as slavery, but it is certainly immoral at some level.

[swillfredo pareto]

Example: If the feds give you 100 million to build a light rail, what happens afterward when running the light rail costs say, 2 million a year? That's 2 million you're spending that you would not have spent.

What are you talking about, light rail is always a self-sustaining venture. That hypothetical $2 million will come from the fares, and then some. No one will need to subsidize its ongoing operation in any way.

[John]

"What are you talking about, light rail is always a self-sustaining venture. That hypothetical $2 million will come from the fares, and then some. No one will need to subsidize its ongoing operation in any way."

I can't figure out if you are being funny or you actually believe that. Light rail and mass transit are money losers. If you are kidding, that is very funny.

[The Angry Optimist]

he's being funny, John.

[The Angry Optimist]

If federal government money really did that much good...West Virginia would be [an] economic juggernaut.

I'm fixing this quote, John, because it should be the Quote of the Day.

[John]

I thought so AO. But there are plenty of people out there who would make the argument with a straight face.

[catmozes]

If he wasn't kidding it would be funnier

[robc]

I never realized that John had even less of a sense of humor than joe had.

[John]

RobC,

I have a sense of humor and fingured he had to be kidding. I just wasn't sure.

[razon]

😐
Light rail is always a self-sustaining venture.
😐
🙂
😀

sorry couldn't keep a straight face.

[cjs]

Just one minor correction, Warren County is outside of Cincinnati and very very conservative. Its not even close to Toledo.

[MNG]

AO and robc
I'll admit to being lazy and not reading the entire thing. If the reasons for rejecting the money is that the projects it will fund are ones that will cost your constituents more in the long run or something to do with the strings, then yes of course its OK. But if the money could go to help a need your constituents have and you say no because you thought the original grant should not have passed for this or that reason, then its egregious to say no to it.

[domoarrigato]

But if the money could go to help a need your constituents have and you say no because you thought the original grant should not have passed for this or that reason, then its egregious to say no to it.

What ever happened to being "too stinking proud" to take charity. My country sucks now.

[J sub D]

Jennifer Granholm, the most ineffective governor in the history of the state of Michigan,* said she'll take any money that others turn down.

* Not hyperbole. Replace her with a potted plant and the difference would be neglible.

[J sub D]

I thought so AO. But there are plenty of people out there who would make the argument with a straight face.

Actually the argument from these boondoggle supporters goes something like
"This project will pay for itself and attract _______________ riders daily".

In the interests of full disclosure and honest debate, you can complete the sentence for them by adding "unlike the thousands before that made the exact same claims but didn't".

[Pendulum]

From what I've heard, Michiganders would fare significantly better under the tyrannical reign of Potted Plant I than under Gov. Granholm.

[EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy]

What ever happened to being "too stinking proud" to take charity. My country sucks now.

Scruples, personal integrity, and self-reliance, are sooo passe.

[GPL]

"Ohio, like 31 other states, actually gets more from the federal government than it sends there in all taxes."

I think this statement, although true, is based on a deeply flawed premise. I think it is important to recognize that states don't pay taxes, individual citizens (and less so corporations) pay the taxes. In the very blue states, the majority of these federal income taxes are paid by a rather small sliver of the population. This small sliver of the population that pays most of the taxes typically receives very little for their tax money regardless of what state they live in. The money is just being redistributed to poorer people in other states rather than poorer people in the same state.

[John]

"Not hyperbole. Replace her with a potted plant and the difference would be neglible."

That is not fair to the plant. The plant would have at least not made things worse. Granholm is aweful. I think RC went to law school with her. I guess she was a cold bitch even back then.

[Colonel_Angus]

"But if the money could go to help a need your constituents have and you say no because you thought the original grant should not have passed for this or that reason, then its egregious to say no to it."

Maybe the constituents should determine that next election. This will show whether said constituents have any pride or if they are just scumbags with an entitlement problem.

[The Wine Commonsewer (You can]

I think it's something like malpractice for folks to reject the money alloted to their constituents.

That's the same argument Sam's Club makes when they take stolen property from local governments. Costco does it so we have to do it too. To protect our stockholders interests.