Governor Bobby Jindal's rejection of $98 million in stimulus funding allocated to expand unemployment benefits in Louisiana will, apparently, stand, as a Louisiana House committee voted 6-3 today against a resolution to override Jindal's wishes.
The House Labor Committee voted 6-3 against House Concurrent Resolution 8 by Democratic Rep. Rickey Hardy that would have been the first step in sidestepping the Republican governor's decision. Committee Chairman Avon Honey, a Democrat, sided with opponents of the measure.
Hardy, D-Lafayette, said unemployed workers need the expanded benefits to help them take care of their families and cope with the national recession.
"Surely we can agree that we would like to see our citizens benefit from the money being offered by the federal government... It's their money and they want it now," he said.
The stimulus money would give unemployment benefits to thousands of people who normally wouldn't be eligible for them, like certain part-time workers and people who leave jobs because of domestic abuse or a family member's disability, and it would expand benefits to some others, including those with dependents.
Jindal opposed Louisiana getting the money because "it does come with strings attached," according to his spokesman, namely that the increase in benefit allowance could increase businesses' unemployment tax levels down the road.
Louisiana's unemployment rate was 5.8 percent in March. That's not one of the highest rates in the country -- it's in fact half of what unemployment is in Oregon -- but what that number hides is that government spending is a big part of the reason (h/t publius) that Louisiana's unemployment rate has been steady to begin with:
NEW ORLEANS — Years before Washington spent $787 billion on a national stimulus bill, it staged an unintended trial run in Louisiana, a huge injection of some $51 billion for which historians find few, if any, precedents in a single state.
The experiment is still playing out, but some indicators suggest that what occurred in Louisiana — dumping a large amount of reconstruction money into a confined space in the three and a half years since Hurricane Katrina — has had a positive outcome. The state’s unemployment rate of 5.7 percent in February was considerably below the national average of 8.1 percent, and it was the only state to see a drop in unemployment from December to January. It was also the only state with an increase in non-farm employment in February.
So Jindal and state lawmakers can rest easily, almost happily, on that cushion of federal aid that's keeping their unemployment low when they refuse to expand benefits. In so doing, Jindal can throw down an impressive political gauntlet for whomever chooses to challenge him in 2012. Look forward to a lot of, "Louisiana kept its unemployment low without taking needless monies from the government" ads. (And then, let's hope, look forward to rebuttals about the $1 billion he's planning to add to the state's budget this year thanks to that same stimulus).
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Catherine Forsythe
Writer to the Stars
Emily Holleman
Iron Skillet
Leslie Harpole
old new lefty
Salon.com
Comments
That guy has given me the creeps from day one.
As to how he got elected...he really was the best option in a cast of clowns....
It's a hard one to explain. I can't say anymore as I'm a LA government employee. But, it was a complicated decision for all of us.
denese
Does anyone see the resemblance between Bill O'Reilly and Dr. Zachary Smith from the old 'Lost in Space'? Or is it just me?
Separated at Birth
.
Being a couple of states over, though, I am tired of hearing those who receive the greater portion of federal funds bitch the most about the help they receive. I know that doesn't mean all and some of you are just as irritated by it as I am.
Kevin, I kind of like the Gov. Gilligan tag. I think I've seen that with a hat graphic somewhere.
I was surprised to learn that the workforce in Louisiana had grown a little bit since last year, but not enough (I think) to make a dent in the exodus post-Katrina.
Great comments, all. It is frustrating, isn't it?
It came down to whether the business community was willing to give what was termed a dollar for every working person in that state, just one dollar, and business after business the owners said 'NO!'.
I was struck by the low regard that those 'business people' had for their employees. Heck, many of them couldn't afford to live in the communities where they worked. Many were working two and three jobs. And the high and mighty business people wouldn't cough up a lousy dollar! Then the killer, one business owner laments about how 'tough things are' and that spending that extra dollar would kill the businesses that are blocking it, then he waxes philosophical about how he doesn't think he can keep his business running...
It's like they get it, but at the last second, they lose it. Tragic...
Surely, there must be a better cartoon character to illustrate Jindal's character...?
Oh, and Steaming Pile -- tell us where you're from, so we can judge you and the rest of your fellow citizens by the boneheaded decisions of your elected officials. Then we can figure out who used to own your state and offer it back to them. :)
And then, when through no fault of their own his own people are unemployed and suffering, he rejects money that could help thousands of them.
But this is what the oxymoronic "compassionate conservatism"is: lofty but empty sound bites that in the end abandon ordinary, desperate people to drown even when life jackets are available.
The 30,000 foot view always looks better than the view from the ground...
I was offended by your remarks Steaming Pile, and frankly those of lsujp but just didn't know how to respond articulately and not in a similarly trashy generalized kind of way. Mr. Moose did it for me.
Trust me when I say that most of the folks who live here want things to get better... we're tired of being last on all the good lists and first on all the bad ones. We thought Jindal was a step in the right direction... then someone had to go and whisper "2012" in his ear.
In practice, it looks secessionist, and a lot of people are talking that wy.
If you look up "Igor Panarin" this is what he wants for the United States. It would not be the first time that foreign powers found ambitious Americans willing to divide the country.
Maybe we should call him Bobby "Burr" Jindal. rated.
Believe me, I'm pushing for change as much as anyone.
d
If he's really the best Louisiana has to offer, I'd be thinking seriously about moving.
"he's really protecting businesses who don't want to pay more in unemployment tax"
Here is the basic problem with taking the federal money. Businesses don't pay taxes. Nope, not the first penny. Businesses only handle the money. If taxes are raised, businesses just collect the extra from you, their customer, and send it along to the state or feds.
They pay not a dime.
Unless I'm misunderstanding your argument.
Business is going to do what it needs to do to produce the after tax income that it needs. Be that from a small business man who just has bills to play like the rest of us, or a large company who is trying to meet Wall Street predictions of what the share holders want and need.
When the government, federal, state or city, comes in and places a tax on the business that is money that needs to be made up somehow to prevent the shortfall to the owner, Wall Street or the stock holders. There are only two ways to do it, increase income or cut costs.
When I was in the restaurant business taxes were figured into the cost analysis just like the price of cheese. Yes I owned pizza restaurants. So if the price of cheese when up I first tried to increase prices. By increasing prices I was able to continue with the way I was doing things.
But what happens when the market can't stand a price increase? Then I had to attack cost. To do that I had to decrease services or lower the quality of the food I sold by using cheaper food items.
Somebody lost, and it wasn't me. I took home each year what I needed. The people who paid were the ones who found the quality or service less or the price higher. I just flowed the money to someone else be it a food supplier or the tax man.
The reason higher prices is the first option is unless you are at the market limit for price people will pay for what they want at the quality level they want. You can go to Pizza Hut or you can go to CiCi's Pizza. Both good, but for different reasons.
You are right that it wouldn't ''automatically rebound onto consumers in cash.", but it will rebound to them in some fashion, cash, quality, or service.