On a short-term basis, the governor's moves here seem very reasonable. Many families across the state (and the country) could certainly use a bit of help right now, and Rendell's redirection of taxpayer money from programs that aren't working to provide some aid to families now is a practical and effective measure. I would actually like to see more money put towards job counseling services at the county level across Pennsylvania. I like most of us can agree that, in a general sense, there are moves that federal, state, and local government can make to alleviate some of the economic pain currently being experienced by families here and across the country that don't involve massive tax hikes, huge spending increases, and increasing our debt burden dramatically. Actions like those taken by Rendell did here make perfect sense and will provide help now ("targeted, temporary, and timely", to borrow the since-forgotten buzzphrase from Washington), as opposed to some grandiose spending scheme that will take years to have any impact on the economy or employment (a.k.a., the "stimulus"). Kudos to Rendell.

I agree that the intentions are admirable, but shouldn't the legislature have a say? Power of the purse and all that...

Greg -

Actually, if members of the General Assembly were able to pick and chose where the redirected dollars came from, Pennsylvania families may receive their heating assistance in time to pay their bills next winter.

All kidding aside, I see your point. If I were sitting in the House or Senate, I would like to know exactly where the money came from for the governor's redirection scheme. Transparency and accountability in government should be the order of the day, both in Harrisburg and Washington. On the other hand, I believe what Rendell did here was within the bounds of his authority (I'm not an expert in matters of the PA Constitution, but I believe this is true), and it provided some of our struggling families with help now, as opposed to waiting for another "stimulus" to magically whip into action. It was a prudent and responsible move for Rendell to make.

RENDELL UNILATERALLY REDIRECTS MILLIONS TO HELP...
To the Gentleman...
I am much pleased as well as a bit surprised (forgive me) to learn of your support for Rendell's action.
I do agree with you that this was both a "prudent and responsible move" on the part of the Governor.
At the same time, allow me to take a kindly exception to your concern over waiting for another stimulus to "magically" whip things into action.
Let us give the President's initiative a chance to do its work. After all, it is only a matter of a month and in some cases, a time line counted in a few weeks or even days since these federal funding streams were fixed.
In terms of Governor Rendell's initiative, there is no magic here since Rendell already knew these ferderal monies were sanctioned and on their way to Pennsylvania...he is simply moving things ahead of the curve.
I further agree with your call for directing more resources towards job counseling services. As far back as the 1982 recession, attempts to steer displaced workers onto new meaningful employment opportunities(especially older employees) has been no less than dismal.
I fully appreciate but nevertheless am forced to take exception to both your own and Greg's concerns over the state legislature having a role here.
These are serious times that call for swift and straight-forward action by the executive. The very last thing needed here is second guessing and grand standing by 253 policians, many of whom are driven by agendas that are far less than altruistic.
As an analogy on the federal level, we are already seeing these same conflicting agendas by way of the leadership in both political parties directed at the Obama Administration's efforts to get a handle on what is an extremely serious financial and economic crisis.
In 1933, the U.S. Congress allowed Franklin Roosevelt a full three months of unbridled action...in fact, the first real challenge to FDR's worthy attempts to combat the depression came not from Congress, but from the Supreme Court (1934) in its adverse ruling on the president's National Recovery Act (NRA).
Obama has now been president for less than two months and pigmies in both parties are already carping at him.
The last thing we need in Pennsylvania is a similar situation involving our own already flawed legislature...something that can only promise a nasty political imbroglio that at best, will long delay and at worst, go on to torpedo all our efforts to bring about the Commonwealth's economic recovery.
Matt Thomas

Matt -

I believe that you may have misread me. I'm not the slightest bit worried about the General Assembly not having a say in Rendell's actions - I'm actually relieved! The basis for my support of Rendell redirecting state money towards immediate relief is that the move is timely, targeted, and most likely temporary. The legislature cannot pick and choose which of their pet agencies/programs are spared from the budgetary scalpel. This is a good example of why I've always been warm to the idea of a line-item veto at the federal level (despite the disputed constitutionality of it).

Will the state funding Rendell transferred away from those programs ultimately be restored with federal money? Probably, after the General Assembly raises Cain over it, which they ultimately will. Regardless, Rendell deserves a pat on the back for making a budgetary move that actually makes a lot of sense (which is rare for Ed, I might add...).

As for Obama's budgetary moves thus far in his young term, praise cannot continue to flow like a river, I'm afraid. We've already debated the merits of his "stimulus" bill before, Matt, and I can't say my view of it has changed since. His quarter-of-a-trillion dollar spending initiative (which you and I both know will balloon well beyond a trillion before all is said and done) is the antithesis of Rendell's action regarding the targeting of the money, it's timely disbursement, and budgetary discipline. Yes, Obama has a much larger canvass to cover than Rendell, but the same principles could have been applied nationally that Rendell practiced here in Pennsylvania.

Despite repeated claims of "national emergency", Obama chose not to focus on the root cause of our current financial strife (the banking system, where we still haven't heard a single coherent solution), but devised a politically-laced spending scheme that, by non-partisan accounts, won't even begin to have considerable effect for several years. Some independent analysis has even suggested some of Obama's planned spending will ultimately prove to be a drag on the economy. Most individual taxpayers will receive an additional $20 in their paychecks (vs. several thousand if a payroll tax suspension would have been utilized) and small businesses (the primary source of job creation in our country) received little to no incentives to begin hiring again (which is, again, tied to the freeze in the credit markets as well).

In short, Matt, I would argue that Rendell, unlike Obama, has not used this crisis as a political cloak to sneak his agenda through the budgetary door. Yes, additional education spending, "green" jobs, etc., may well be worthy proposals, but they should be debated on their merits, through the appropriations process, not shoved down Americans throats under the guise of "national emergency". Obama has now banked his presidency on his pet initiatives actually standing up and walking down the street, so to speak. If the "green" industry does not begin creating new jobs and "shovel ready" infrastructure spending proves not to be, well, "ready", the President will have quite a bit to answer for in short order, not to mention a huge bill to explain away to taxpayers.

I don't "hope" for the President's failure. I just can't conceivably see exactly how his current policies succeed.