"Ridiculously risky" no more

I'm not mathematician, but I'm pretty sure that the $381 million in HB22 and the $785 million in the FY2010 budget add up to around $1.17 billion in federal stimulus approved by the "fiscally conservative" appropriators this week.

You may or may not recall that the librul spendthrifts in the Governor's office proposed spending a smaller sum -- $809 million -- at the front end of this budgetary fiasco.  Such plans were mocked and ridiculed at the time as unnecessarily risky, irresponsible and akin to riverboat gambling. Here's one good example (sadly, the full article is no longer on the KC Star's website):

Nixon betting on federal stimulus to balance Missouri's budget
February 12, 2009
by Steve Kraske, Jason Noble and David Keppler

To some political observers, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon is a riverboat gambler betting the mortgage on a ridiculously risky play...

In Missouri, Republicans call Nixon's plan for stimulus money a "Mad Max" gambit destined to mire the state in a financial hole from which it may take years to escape.

"Irresponsible," said House Budget chairman Allen Icet, a Wildwood Republican.

"A ticking time bomb," said House Speaker Ron Richard, a Joplin Republican.

A "ridiculously risky play" no more, it would seem.

Or consider this example, with comments from Peter Kinder, who's been all over the map with using stimulus money.

"A budget based on a one-time bailout is no long-term plan," said Republican Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder in his party's formal response to Nixon's address. "We need an enduring vision for our state's economy, not a budget propped up on debt that will have to be paid back by our children and grandchildren."

It's funny how things change, once you're actually required to craft a budget. But it's more than a little ironic that after initially suggesting an outright rejection of the federal money, the House and Senate have actually spent more federal money that the Governor proposed.

So much for the "'Mad Max' gambit."