Not just Jindal
Earlier today, I
ran into this news item about how Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal was rejecting part of the bailout money as the strings attached were too draconian for his liking.
Turns out, it's not just him. From
ABC News:
Offered Millions, Some Govs Just Say No
The nation's governors descended on the capital this weekend to consider how to spend their share of the $787 billion economic stimulus and to lay the groundwork for more federal largess to come.
Nearly all the governors have been demanding help from Washington for months, and 46 states are facing budget shortfalls. Some have already been forced to lay off workers. So they need the money, but at least four Republican governors say they will turn at least some of it away.
Leading the critics was South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford.
"The stimulus is a huge mistake," Sanford told ABC News, "a political promise that's been made but not paid for."
Sanford said he would reject unemployment insurance because of what he said were federal strings attached to it, and also said he would not take $42 million in funding for green buildings.
Like Sanford, Republican Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi said he would reject the federal unemployment extension money, which requires that states extend the benefits to workers laid off from part-time jobs.
"We will not be accepting unemployment insurance money because it requires us to have a significant tax increase in the future," Barbour told ABC. "Most states like Mississippi do not allow people to get unemployment compensation unless they are willing and able to take a full-time job."
A bit more -- from a Democrat:
Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, the head of the National Governors Association, which sponsored the event this weekend, had a message for the gubernatorial critics.
"If you don't take that money on ideological grounds, the only ones you're hurting are the citizens of your state," Rendell told ABC News. "So suck it up, say you disagree but say that you're going to take it because it's going to be helpful to the citizens of your state."
No, it is not hurting the citizens of the state to refuse to give unemployment for part-time jobs. If you don't want to work full-time***, you should not be receiving the benefits. Removing $12M from the workers paychecks each and every year will be hurting them a lot more.
*** By full-time, I mean people who have the same shifts each and every week, even if they do not work 40 hours. We have people at the store who only work 10-15 hours over the two week pay-period and we are still putting money into their unemployment accounts.
My praise for Jindal is that he recognized this and realized that if he took money from the Federal teat, this would require a major change in the Louisiana state law regarding unemployment in the future. The United States of America is a federated Republic of States and States Rights are paramount.
Posted by DaveH at February 21, 2009 9:10 PM