February 21, 2009

A dilution of states rights with the stimulus package

While the people in Congress that voted on it didn't read the bill, I'm glad that at least one Governor did. There is a lot of "free" money being handed out but there are some not--so--free strings attached. From New Orleans station WWL:
Jindal rejects unemployment money in stimulus
Gov. Bobby Jindal said Friday he doesn't want Louisiana to tap into $98 million in stimulus money for expanding unemployment benefits for thousands of people who wouldn't normally be eligible to receive them.

The Republican governor repeatedly had said he wasn't sure the state should draw down all the stimulus money it's eligible to receive, but the announcement was the first detail he's offered about dollars he wants to refuse.

However, Jindal - one of several GOP heads of state considering turning away some of the stimulus - said he wants Louisiana to use money earmarked for boosting unemployment aid by $25 a week and for road and bridge work.

The rest of Louisiana's share of the federal package still was under review, Jindal said.
And the reason?
The dollars that Jindal intends to reject could provide unemployment aid to 4,000 to 6,000 more Louisiana residents, the state labor department estimates. But the acceptance would require a permanent change in state law that would force businesses to pay higher unemployment taxes once the federal dollars run out, Jindal said.

The labor department projects it would cost businesses an extra $12 million a year after the stimulus money ends - in less than three years.
Emphasis mine -- looks like Jindal is in favor of business owners. Very cool! The idea that a federal grant like this could carry such draconian strings makes me wonder what else is in the Porkulus package and how many states will adopt the quick and free money without realizing the impact of the strings attached. Posted by DaveH at February 21, 2009 1:10 PM
Comments
Post a comment









Remember personal info?