Stimulus Bill, making the permanent non-working class - DFWstangs Forums
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 8 (permalink) Old 02-25-2009, 03:00 PM Thread Starter
Token Troll
 
GhostTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sherman
Posts: 4,101
Stimulus Bill, making the permanent non-working class

Holy crap, I didn't realize fully why governors were rejecting the money. This brings it to a whole new level. Basically creating a permanent class of people that don't have to work that would get government money and the States would have to give them that money.
Quote:
Betray Your Principles, Get a Check!
Why state governors are turning down federal cash.

By Michael G. Franc

(B)(i) If the Secretary of Labor finds that the State law provisions (disregarding any State law provisions which are not then currently in effect as permanent law or which are subject to discontinuation) meet the requirements of paragraph (2) or (3), as the case may be, the Secretary of Labor shall thereupon make a certification to that effect to the Secretary of the Treasury, together with a certification as to the amount of the incentive payment to be transferred to the State account pursuant to that finding.

— American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Division B, Title II, Section 2003 (emphasis added)

This arcane provision appears about three-quarters of the way through the new stimulus law. It is part of the title that doles out $7 billion in additional unemployment insurance (UI) benefits. The italicized portion has sparked an intense debate over whether the nation’s 50 governors should accept this new funding. With some federal giveaways, the question doesn’t arise: Why turn down free money? But in this case, “free” money could end up costing a lot.

Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal started the firestorm last week when he announced that Louisiana would reject its share of the new unemployment-insurance funding. His rationale: The parenthetical phrase would require the Pelican State to (1) jettison longstanding policies about who can and cannot receive UI benefits and (2) increase the payroll-tax burden on employers.

Jindal’s reservations elicited catcalls from befuddled big-government governors as well as one of his own state’s senators, Democrat Mary Landrieu. But when other conservative governors echoed Jindal’s concerns, a gubernatorial tea party seemed in the offing.

On Sunday’s Meet the Press, Jindal explained his rejection of the bill’s UI funds this way:

The $100 million we turned down was temporary federal dollars that would require us to change our unemployment laws. That would’ve actually raised taxes on Louisiana businesses. We as a state would’ve been responsible for paying for those benefits after the federal money disappeared.

Jindal went on to echo former president Reagan by adding:

So many of these things that are called temporary programs end up being permanent government programs. But this one’s crystal clear, black and white letter law. The federal stimulus bill says it has to be a permanent change in state law if you take this state money. And so within three years the federal money’s gone, we’ve got now a permanent change in our laws, we have to pay for it, our businesses pay for it. I don’t think it makes sense to be raising taxes on Louisiana businesses during these economically challenging times.

It makes no sense, he concluded, “for us to take temporary federal dollars and create permanent state obligations.”

A neighboring governor, Mississippi’s Haley Barbour, detailed what the federal strings tied to these funds would mean to his state. He characterized the conditions as “welfare state 3.0” in a February 6 interview with CNBC’s Chris Matthews:


MATTHEWS: [W]hat about . . . your House speaker down there? He says you need the money. He can’t — he says he’s incredulous . . . that you would stand against getting this money in the coffers of the state treasury.

BARBOUR: . . . Well, this bill, according to the advocates for the bill, would let Mississippi have $54 million of additional money for unemployment. The only problem is, when you read the details, we get $3.9 million of that for what we do now. And to get the other $50 million, we have to expand unemployment to let people collect unemployment that have never been eligible in our — in our state, including people who aren’t willing to take a full-time job.

Now, there’s way too much of that in this bill, social policy, to the point it — it’s kind of welfare state 3.0.

MATTHEWS: What do you mean by — I thought you had to be able to — when you go to unemployment, you go down to the desk, you tell them what you can do, and they find a job for you. You are saying that that’s not a requirement under this new system?

BARBOUR: That’s right. In Mississippi today, if . . . you’re unemployed, we try to help you find a job. Until you can find a job, get offered a job, we pay you unemployment. But you have to be willing to accept a full-time job in order to be paid unemployment.

This law, this bill, the stimulus package, would change that, and would require Mississippi, to get this $50 million, to change our law.

Now, Chris, that means that, in a year-and-a-half or two years, when the federal money runs out, however long it is, then my employers are about to get a $10 million or $15 million tax increase to give unemployment to people that Mississippi doesn’t think you should give unemployment to, but is going to be crammed down our throat by Washington.

MATTHEWS: So, this extra spurt of money, this stimulus money that would be coming down to Jackson, Mississippi, for Mississippi and the other states, you are saying it’s going to bring with it the federal hold on you guys, tell you how to do certain things that the government in Washington doesn’t do now?

BARBOUR: What I’m saying is, we need to be very careful to make sure we understand what strings are attached.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

The “federal hold” to which Matthews refers is actually several provisions taken directly from a separate bill authored by liberal Rep. Jim McDermott (D., Wash.). His Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act is an undisguised effort to force states to loosen dramatically their eligibility requirements for unemployment insurance (UI) payments in exchange for more federal cash. States, for example, would have to agree to make UI benefits available to individuals:

who leave their jobs for a “compelling family reason,” including (undefined) illnesses or disabilities of immediate family members or moving to “a place from which it is impractical . . . to commute” because a spouse accepts a new job; and

who seek only part-time work (most states require recipients to look for full-time positions) or refuse to pursue job leads because they are enrolled in job-training programs (most states bar this practice).


Unemployment-insurance systems vary widely from state to state and reflect the differing cultural mores that prevail across the country. Some states place a high priority on personal responsibility and work effort, and maintain systems that make benefits harder to obtain; others simply want to compensate unemployed workers for being unemployed, with no questions asked. The stimulus bill is the latest example of Washington using its seemingly unlimited resources to cram dependency-inducing and work-discouraging requirements down the throats of states whose leaders place a much higher value on work and personal responsibility.

Go for it, Bobby, Haley, and any other courageous governors who dare stand up to imperial Washington.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...U3NDYzNTVkZWQ=

'05 Redfire Mustang

"Self-government won't work without self-discipline." - Paul Harvey
GhostTX is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 8 (permalink) Old 02-25-2009, 05:00 PM
T5-T56-Tremec specialist
 
thesource's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Heading back to Plentywood
Posts: 8,389
If this is the case , the states need to think long and hard about how badly they need the money . Hopefully Texas will pass on it since we have a surplus right now .
thesource is offline  
post #3 of 8 (permalink) Old 02-25-2009, 05:08 PM
Lifer
 
Shaithis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Corinth
Posts: 6,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by thesource View Post
If this is the case , the states need to think long and hard about how badly they need the money . Hopefully Texas will pass on it since we have a surplus right now .

Last i heard, our govenor refused, then retracted that refusal while his lips were on Obama's microphone.


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6268076.html

Newbies, please watch THIS before posting.
www.Lewisvillefishing.net
Shaithis is offline  
 
post #4 of 8 (permalink) Old 02-25-2009, 05:09 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Dallas Texas
Posts: 528
jindal

Right! just look at what Bobby Jindal has been saying!
I’m not from Louisiana but that man makes me proud!
His rebuttal to the president last night and what he has been doing in regard to this stimulus plan, I just wish more of our governors would WAKE UP!
Adam_aoc is offline  
post #5 of 8 (permalink) Old 02-25-2009, 05:23 PM
Lifer
 
Shaithis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Corinth
Posts: 6,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam_aoc View Post
Right! just look at what Bobby Jindal has been saying!
I’m not from Louisiana but that man makes me proud!
His rebuttal to the president last night and what he has been doing in regard to this stimulus plan, I just wish more of our governors would WAKE UP!
They won't because the states have become too dependent on the federal teat.

Newbies, please watch THIS before posting.
www.Lewisvillefishing.net
Shaithis is offline  
post #6 of 8 (permalink) Old 02-25-2009, 05:32 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Dallas Texas
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaithis View Post
They won't because the states have become too dependent on the federal teat.
well its nice to dream....
Adam_aoc is offline  
post #7 of 8 (permalink) Old 02-25-2009, 06:35 PM
T-MINUS
 
Sean88gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 28,540
Jindal is sharp, and I hope he has the sack to follow through.

1/19/09, the last day of Free America.
Pericles "Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it. "

"[T]he people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government and to reform, alter, or totally change the same when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it." --Samuel Adams


Sean88gt is offline  
post #8 of 8 (permalink) Old 02-25-2009, 08:04 PM
Married Man on 14Feb2010
 
TexasDevilDog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Fort Worth, Texas (North Side)
Posts: 14,140
Sound like it is time for the states to initiate a constitutional amendment which states that the federal government can not mandate how money is spent, when it gives it out. I bet the federal government would not be passing out money then, and would save all of us a bunch of money.
TexasDevilDog is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome