Several Republican governors are voicing concerns about the unemployment insurance portion of the newly signed "stimulus" bill. In an editorial, the New York Times opines that "(t)his behavior reinforces the disturbing conclusion that the Republican Party seems more interested in ideological warfare than in working on policies that get the country back on track."
The Times explains what the bill would require of the states:
States that accept the stimulus money aimed at the unemployed are required to abide by new federal rules that extend unemployment protections to low-income workers and others who were often shorted or shut out of compensation. This law did not just materialize out of nowhere. It codified positive changes that have already taken place in at least half the states.
To qualify for the first one-third of federal aid, the states need to fix arcane eligibility requirements that exclude far too many low-income workers. To qualify for the rest of the aid, states have to choose from a menu of options that include extending benefits to part-time workers or those who leave their jobs for urgent family reasons, like domestic violence or gravely ill children.
Basically, if you accept the federal money, you have to change your "arcane" laws. But, if you protest and decline the money, you are engaged in "ideological warfare." These governors don't realize the laws of their state are no longer their responsibility - it is now the business of Washington and the New York Times. Saying "no thanks" is not an option.
The governors are worried that the new standards will require the states to raise taxes in the future when the stimulus money runs out. Here is how the Times came to reject this thinking (emphasis added):
The governors are blowing smoke when they suggest that the federal unemployment aid would lead directly to new state taxes. No one knows what the economic climate will be when the federal aid has been used up several years from now. But by dumping billions of dollars into shrinking state unemployment funds, which puts money into the hands of people who spend it immediately on food and shelter, the stimulus could help the states through the recession and into a time when unemployment trust funds can be replenished. In other words, the stimulus could make a tax increase less likely.
Did you follow that? I'll restate it: because future tax increases "could" be "less likely", the governors are merely "blowing smoke." This is the Times' idea of taking a chunk out of the governors argument that accepting the federal money is in reality a coerced tax hike in the future.
I'm not sure how much the stimulus is going to help end the recession. The Times says "the stimulus could help their states", so they're not sure either. Why then is it wrong for governors to reject the part of the stimulus that could force future tax hikes? Well, because the Times actually doesn't care about raising taxes:
But even if new taxes are required at some point, the new federal standards would protect more unemployed workers than ever before and bring states like Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas into the 21st century.
For the Times, it was about expanding government all along. These states need to get in tune with the 21st Century models like California - you know, the ones that are about to go bankrupt and need a bailout from the solvent states.
The Times concludes:
Governors like Mr. Jindal should be worrying about how to end this recession while helping constituents feed and house their families — not about finding ways to revive tired election-year arguments about big spending versus small government.
Doesn't Jindal know that the size of government can only be debated in election years? Didn't he realize that when Obama won last November it meant his Administration had the right to set Louisiana's tax policies?
Only the Times could spend an entire editorial arguing for the expansion of government in Louisiana and then end by criticizing that state's governor for having made a rebuttal. But, who could blame the Times, Obama made the same argument in his inaugural. It's the current liberal zeitgeist. Ideas regarding larger government could work, while Republican ideas shouldn't even be mentioned. Another debate has been declared over.
UPDATE (2/25/09): It seems a Democratic governor might decline the unemployment section of the "stimulus" package.
you can buy rs gold and buy rs powerleveling in runeup.com, it is safe.You can be at ease completely of shopping in here.
Posted by: buy rs powerleveling | June 19, 2009 at 08:45 PM