One is hardly surprised by Governor Jindal's eagerness to position himself for the 2012 Republican nomination contest by showily turning down a tiny piece of the stimulus funding. But it's sobering to think that there will likely be children going to bed hungry because he decided to grandstand with regard to unemployment benefits.
I'm not sure that Jindal is right about the "permanent" requirement in the new legislation. Section 2003(a) of the new law provides that, in determining whether a state's law otherwise meets the requirements for federal funding under the stimulus law, the Secretary of Labor shall evaluate the state's law "disregarding any State law provisions which are not then currently in effect as permanent law or which are subject to discontinuation."
ReplyDelete"Permanent law" is defined in Black's as law that continues for an indefinite time.
I think that means the legislature can change the law after the federal assistance ends but cannot now enact a sunset provision in state law.
Jindal does not want his state legislature to have that power.
FWIW - I agree with Jindal.
ReplyDeleteThe Wall Street Journal Article today supports his assertion that the unemployment, health care and welfare benefits come from federal funding for the first 2 years. At that point the state either pays or cuts benefits.
Additionally, they say that while govs may turn down the money the bill allows legislatures to spend the money without the govs sign on.
This bill will not fix the prob and will likely make things worse.
JustJan,
ReplyDeleteI really don't think you get this. Everyone EXCEPT jindal agrees with what you said. You say, "At that point the state either pays or cuts benefits." Yea.. we all agree on that except Bobby. His (flawed) argument is that you can't "cut benefits" because the law has to be "permanent". Now, read SteveW's post and see if you understand it this time.