Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Legislature / Politics / Woods Phil Bredesen and Sarah Palin on the Same Page on Stimulus: Who Needs Jobless Benefits Anyway?
Posted by Jeff Woods on Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 5:31 AM
They say it comes with too many strings attached, requiring states to change their laws to expand coverage to more low-wage and part-time workers who have lost their jobs. It amounts to an unfunded mandate, that bugaboo of governors everywhere. Once the stimulus money disappears in a couple of years, states might have to raise business taxes a little bit (oh nooooo!) to pay for an expanded program to help laid-off workers feed their families.
"We are evaluating this piece of money, whether it makes sense for us to take it," Bredesen says. "We may well be one of the states that say we can't take on that portion of it."
The New York Times is editorializing on this topic this morning: "Imagine yourself jobless and struggling to feed your family while the governor of your state threatens to reject tens of millions of dollars in federal aid earmarked for the unemployed. That is precisely what is happening in poverty-ridden states like Louisiana and Mississippi where Republican governors are threatening to turn away federal aid rather than expand access to unemployment insurance programs in ways that many other states did a long time ago."
There's a Democratic governor in a poverty-ridden state doing the same thing.
In Washington at the National Governors Association meeting over the weekend, Democratic governors criticized Republicans who are turning down money, calling them "fringe" politicians eager to score political points. As they were talking, we're guessing Bredesen was staring at his shoes. We don't think Bredesen is trying to score political points. He just doesn't give a rat's ass about unemployed workers. OK, that's a little harsh. Let's just say he's having trouble connecting with his feelings.
Nationally, only about 37 percent of unemployed workers collect unemployment benefits, according to the National Employment Law Project, which supports the expanded unemployment benefit program. They estimate that, if states agree to the expansions, another 500,000 workers a year across the country would be eligible to collect unemployment.
Tennessee has one of the lowest benefit levels in the nation, providing a maximum of $275 a week. The average check is $216 a week. The unemployment trust fund, which is going broke, is pumping out 120,000 checks a week, three times more than last year.
If Bredesen doesn't turn it down, Tennessee would receive $141 million to expand the program. "We have an unemployment fund which is not in good shape right now," he says. "We're in the position of going back to our Legislature this year for changes in our tax structure just to keep our fund whole, and taking it to a new level may be too much of a lift for the Legislature this spring."
Comments (18)
Showing 1-18 of 18
like
dislike
Oh yeah raising business taxes won't hurt employment in the long run at all.
Dear liberal retards, the world isn't ending tomorrow so try some forward thinking. Or just boycott meat and let the grownups handle the important things.
Little known fact: There is a direct correlation between red meat consumption and non-liberal retardry and/or grownupness.
Well Woods, if you're so "concerned" about the unemployed, why don't you start a business and hire some of them instead of grandstanding about how virtuous it is to volunteer other peoples money for handouts?
Mandating charity has never been a legitimate function of government.
Bredesen needs to get focused on the most vulnerable in Tennessee, and take the money! If the rest of us have to chip in a bit more in the future to cover that, so be it. But we should not be aligning ourselves with the fringe govs by kicking our most needy citizens to the curb.
Actually, unemployment in Alaska is probably the lowest in the nation. What's going on in rural Alaska involves villagers who fish for a living and ended up with a poor catch last summer. They wouldn't be getting unemployment benefits anyway (but do qualify for other programs).
" He just doesn't give a rat's ass about unemployed workers."
Or employed workers, or the sick, elderly, disabled. In short no one but himself and the few elite who will get an invitation to party in the Bunker.
Why can't Bredesen just put a sunset tag on the new rules so they'd expire in two years after the stimulus money runs out? It's emergency funding, after all, and the new rules can also carry emergency designation.
Seems like the man would rather grandstand with his own austerity rather than be creative. And why does he always seem to get moral when it comes to aid for regular people?
Phil Bredesen is letting a lot of Tennesseans down with this decision. I will forecast it will cost him in the next election as he will be labeled the governor of "NO". Listen, the President has passed a major piece of legislation with Congressional approval. What the hell gives him (Bredesen) the right as a single state governor to reject the federal legislation? This is and always will be... The UNITED States of America.
This is a very interesting issue. Tennessee is one of the most EMPLOYER friendly states in the union. Our unemployment tax rates are low, our benefits are low, we have no state income tax on the profits of the highly paid.Our unemployment trust fund is in danger of being emptied by the huge numbers of newly unemployed. We need federal help.
However, it would be wrong to change the unemployment system so that it becomes an "entitlement" program. At the present time, eligibiliy is based on being able, available and actively seeking full time work. The only change I have heard of is that people who have been working part time can receive benefits even if they say they are only seeking part time jobs. Even this is not necessarily a good change, though it is frankly not major. I totally fail to see how raising the weekly benefit amount (which as they stated is one of the lowest among the states now) or providing federal extensions would cause the state on-going problems. Unemployment insurance is exactly that, insurance paid by employers against laying off their workforce and dumping them out without income onto the labor market. If they want to do a "give-away" to the unemployed, based on need, this should be separated from the unemployment system.
Trust me, the state unemployment system is in a world of hurt. We need every cent of help the federal government can provide, if just to hire many more people to take the many many more claims being filed--but they're talking about laying off more state workers!
Jason,
"Listen, the President has passed a major piece of legislation with Congressional approval."
Yes, that's nice, but it would have been even nicer IF HIS MAJESTY HAD READ THE DAMN BILL BEFORE HE SIGNED IT.
Damn, buddy, can I sell you a bridge in Brooklyn? You won't even need to review the contract before you sign it. Everything in it is perfectly legal--trust me.
Business EMPLOYS those workers you are so worried about. If the state has to raise taxes on them after all this federal money runs out exactly how many of them will be employing these so-called poor unemployed folks? Oh yes, I forgot liberals want these people to be unemployed and on the federal dole so they can have power of them. Silly me.
Oh yes, and to the ignorant guy who said this:
"What the hell gives him (Bredesen) the right as a single state governor to reject the federal legislation? This is and always will be... The UNITED States of America."
Read the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. The federal government does not rule the states. It cannot force the states to take this money.
Good for Bredesen for realizing that by accepting this money he is giving up one of the most important rights of the states and the residents of that state. And if Barry wanted to really help all he has to do is withdraw the strings and just let the state spend it the way they see fit.
Commie parasites, I mean artists, need a lot of jobless benefits. They also need "free" healthcare as well. I think those people who told you Obama was a commie may have been on to something.
Government spending never made anyone any free-er, helped the economy, or improved the standard of living. All of that comes from smaller government and less spending. Bravo to Bredesen for standing up to DC!
Government intervention, laws, etc have made a tremendous difference in our lives, as opposed to the good old days when we did not have social security, medicare, workman's compensation, wage and hour laws, etc. Those were the good old days only if you happened to be on the right side of it.
Employers need to realize that they will have legitimate costs of doing business, will have to reimburse their employees fairly and legally,and they should check the parts of the constitution that abolished slavery before they arrogantly insist that people should be forced to work for them on their terms without federal intervention, which basically means very hard, and for free.
A person who says anyone who gets unemployment benefits or health care help is a bad person is someone who has not yet lost their job or had a health care crisis. Lucky you.
"Little known fact: There is a direct correlation between red meat consumption and non-liberal retardry and/or grownupness."
qft
The prices of fish oil products has risen significantly. I am giving my son 2 capsules a day to help him with memory. Does anybody know where I an find an affordable solution? By the way, it is great. His grade went up 2 points after consuming fish oil capsules.
