Bob Menendez: “I appreciate what my distinguished colleague from Iowa is trying to do--bring more money to his State. The question is…”

“I appreciate what my distinguished colleague from Iowa is trying to do--bring more money to his State. The question is whether it is fundamentally fair. The answer is no. Let me tell you the States that will get hit pretty badly here: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington, to name a few. The fundamental question is whether we are going to live to this credo of whether targeted is important or whether timely is important. Well, we have the Government Accountability Office saying that the way we are doing it--the way that would be undone by the Senator from Iowa would undo the targeted; it would undo the ability to have the greatest impact to be stimulative. In essence, it would hurt States that have the greatest need. We are one country. I often have voted for issues that have very little benefit for my State, but I understand that at a given moment in time, they are in the greatest interest of the country. Agriculture is one example, and there are others. The bottom line is that we have rising numbers of people, higher unemployment rates, more demand on Medicaid, and less opportunity for individuals to be able to get the resources in States that are already cash strapped. I have listened to moral hazard. There has been no talk about that. We want to teach the States a lesson now.…”