Several governors have made news by announcing that they will refuse at least part of the taxpayer's money which is to be directed to the states by the federal government. Jindal of Lousiana was one of the first, but Rounds of South Dakota has also done so:

Concerned it would cost businesses in the long run, South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds said Monday he plans to reject about $5 million in unemployment insurance aid that's part of the federal economic stimulus package Congress recently passed.

Not everyone, however, thinks that this is a smart idea. Senator Johnson is opposed to the governor's decision. That is all pretty much beside the point.


The greater issue, to my way of thinking, is that somehow we've gotten to the point where we believe it wrong for a state to turn down funding for something (well, anything) that it may not approve of. What principle of good governance permits the federal government to force any state to accept misappropriated taxpayer funds?

Is this not very like receiving stolen goods when one knows that they are stolen? One becomes a party to the crime. I do realize that South Dakota is slated to receive upwards of $700 million from the federal government as part of this "stimulus" so the issue of $5 million which is at risk in Governor Round's decision seems small. Let's just say that the principle of the matter is worth standing up for. It is not too late for the governor (and others) to realize that South Dakota can do without all of these ill-gotten gains.