Jindal Signals Louisiana May Not Take Stimulus Money

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by TigerBait3, Feb 18, 2009.

Page 5 of 7
  1. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    I'm saying that we take the money for the three years that it is offered with it's conditions. Times are going to be tough with over 10% unemployment. If Kylek is right and it is a Louisiana law that requires business to pick up the extra bill after three years, then we can change the law. That's what legislatures do.

    The republican governors of New York and California will both gladly take Louisiana's share and New York's has already actually said so.

    What am I missing here?
     
    red55, Feb 25, 2009
    #41
  2. mobius481

    mobius481 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    7,731
    Likes Received:
    1,350
    Jindal says that it requires a permanent change in unemployment laws. So he would have to make a permanent change to get the money. Then in three years, when he may not even be governor by the way, we will change the law back? That's wishful thinking. He has to make the decision as if it is a permanent change because more than likely it will be at the end of the day. You can't just make the assumption that you will have support to change it back in three years. That's naive.

    And if I were the governors of NY and Cali, I would gladly take the money too. In fact, I would take any money at all under any conditions. Doesn't mean it's in our best interest to take it.
     
    mobius481, Feb 25, 2009
    #42
  3. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Who said we have to change the law twice? Jindal said the law would have to be changed to prevent the state businesses from having to pay it after the stimulus is over. So, we change the law now, so that we can take the stimulus money without hurting business after the stimulus. No need to change it back at all, if it is a law that prevents the state from accepting stimulus money, as Jindal suggests.

    Or perhaps it is just politics after all.
     
    red55, Feb 25, 2009
    #43
  4. mobius481

    mobius481 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    7,731
    Likes Received:
    1,350
    uh....what???

    This is what I understand. Right now, to receive the stimulus money, we have to change our state unemployment benefits laws. This would expand benefits for the unemployed. The increase in cost to the program would cause a shortfall under current funding that would be made up for by stimulus money. Stimulus money will last about three years in the program and then the program would have to be funded some other way because it is still bigger than it is today. Our options would then be to change the law back to current day system (which is what I understood you to be suggesting) or raise taxes to pay for the added cost.

    Am I mistaken about this? If not, please clarify your post to me.
     
    mobius481, Feb 25, 2009
    #44
  5. LSUsupaFan

    LSUsupaFan Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    8,787
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    Another reason to not accept this money is the steller labor market in Louisiana. There are thousands of unfilled jobs. Do we really want to entice people who could be productive to stay on the dole for an increased period of time.

    We are not seeing the job losses in other states and this money could be better used in states with 8 or 9 percent unemployment. As it stands we are below natural unemployment here.
     
    LSUsupaFan, Feb 25, 2009
    #45
  6. tima

    tima Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    9
    Alternative spin: It must be a pretty good plan if Jindal could find only one thing to refuse. It's hard to imagine Jindal would've come up with the exact same plan, and since he considers everything else in it fine, just think about all the extras it would have had if he had designed it.

    IMO, Jindal went looking for a token objection, he found one, and he used it to bolster his conservative cred. Typical politician, but I expected nothing different from that guy.

    Concerning "buffoons", they don't come any bigger than Jindal, who despite being educated in science at Brown, as a student, indulged in a type of voodoo as an exorcist, and as governor, signed the creationism bill into law. If he is the future of the Republican party, it is a bleak future indeed.
     
    tima, Feb 25, 2009
    #46
    2 people like this.
  7. SabanFan

    SabanFan The voice of reason

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    26,080
    Likes Received:
    1,247
    Hot diggity. Another liberal. Welcome.
     
    SabanFan, Feb 25, 2009
    #47
  8. mobius481

    mobius481 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    7,731
    Likes Received:
    1,350
    We're definitely behind the trend on unemployment but I bet it's coming.

    Red???? Is that you????
     
    mobius481, Feb 25, 2009
    #48
  9. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    As I understand it, the law now says that any increased benefits would be permanent and have to be born by the businesses, not the state. So, the stimulus money would pay for three years of increased benefits after which the cost would be born by the state's businesses.

    What I suggest is that the law be changed so that the stimulus money is considered to be a temporary increase (to stimulate the economy and help those unemployed by the crisis). Then when the stimulus money ran out the benefits would revert to normal levels.

    I too, am not an expert on the law and am going by fairly vague press reports, but I don't see why two law changes would be needed. Just one to make the stimulus benefits temporary instead of permanent..
     
    red55, Feb 25, 2009
    #49
  10. LSUsupaFan

    LSUsupaFan Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2003
    Messages:
    8,787
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    From what I am gathering from the press reports the conditions of taking the stimulus require a permanent change to the benefits laws. Landrieu is saying we can make the permanent change then revert when the stimulus money runs out. Jindal is saying it is not worth the risk.
     
    LSUsupaFan, Feb 25, 2009
    #50
Page 5 of 7

Share This Page