Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Mar 12, 2009 in Economy | 41 comments

My Governor Rejects $555 Million for Unemployed Texans

I had read reports that Texas Gov. Rick Perry was planning to turn down $555 million that would expand our state’s unemployment benefits, because, allegedly, the money would have required the state to keep funding the expanded benefits after the stimulus money ran out.

So, in illusional hopes of perhaps persuading my Governor into accepting the money for the sake of present and future unemployed Texans, I wrote my customary Letter to the Editor to my local (Austin) newspaper a couple of weeks ago.

The letter was published yesterday, obviously too late and to no avail. It read:

Helping Texas’ jobless

Re: March 1 article “Texas jobless fund could need federal bailout.”

As part of the stimulus plan, Texas could receive $555 million in federal money to assist with paying unemployment benefits to needy Texans.

Texas Workforce Commission Chairman Tom Pauken said that with more people losing their jobs, a “real deficit” could come by September or October and the state might need to seek a federal loan to maintain the unemployment compensation trust fund.

Yet Gov. Rick Perry refuses to accept the $555 million because he doesn’t want more people to qualify for jobless benefits.

With 26,071 initial claims for benefits in Texas during the week of Feb. 14, compared with 11,226 for the same period one year ago, am I missing something here? Perhaps compassion and taking care of Texans in need — instead of ideology and partisanship?

I said “obviously too late and to no avail,” because the same newspaper reported a couple of hours ago, under the headline, “Perry rejects stimulus money for unemployment“:

Perry, an outspoken critic of President Barack Obama’s $787 billion stimulus bill, accepted most of the roughly $17 billion slated for Texas in the plan.

But the governor turned down the unemployment benefits because he said they would require the state to increase the tax burden on Texas businesses.

“During these tough times, Texas employers are working harder than ever to move products to market, make payroll and create jobs,” Perry said at a news conference at Bering’s, an upscale Houston hardware store. “The last thing they need is government burdening them with higher taxes and expanded obligations.”

But, how about the burden on hundreds of those those 25,000 or so Texans who apparently are losing their source of income every week, Governor. (In January of this year, the Texas unemployment rate jumped to 6.4 percent.)

How about those thousands of Texas families who don’t know where their next meal will come from, Governor?

According to the Austin American Statesman, Perry’s announcement was immediately criticized by Democratic lawmakers and advocates for low-income residents:

“Without this federal money, Texas businesses face increased unemployment insurance taxes in bad times, and without the modest reforms in state law required to get the federal money, about 45,000 Texas workers will go without unemployment insurance,” said Don Baylor, a policy analyst for the Center for Public Policy Priorities.

Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, said rejecting the money “demonstrates the height of denial about the challenges confronting this state and its people.”

And,

“Governor Perry’s decision to reject the $555 million in unemployment aid is simply deplorable,” said Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston. “Texas families are hurting and are worried about how they are going to keep their homes and pay their bills. Today, Governor Perry told them: ‘good luck with that.’ If the Governor won’t do his job, we’ll have to go around him, and I am prepared to do just that.”

How does that song go, Governor? Something like “you picked a good time to leave me…four hungry children…”?

And for sure you picked a good place to tell us, Governor, “at a news conference at Bering’s, an upscale Houston hardware store.”

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2009 The Moderate Voice
  • StockBoySF

    “But the governor turned down the unemployment benefits because he said they would require the state to increase the tax burden on Texas businesses.”

    This action by Perry (and other Republican governors who do something similar) really shows what the Republicans think about the trickle down effect. The Republicans argue that taxes should be cut, even if it is a small amount, because people will spend money and everyone will be lifted from the economic slump. That’s the sum (as far as I can tell) of the GOP recovery plan. Oh, and the nationalization of banks.

    If the Republicans truly thought believed in the trickle down effect, then they would accept the unemployment benefits so more people would spend. That spending (so goes the classic Republican argument for the trickle down effect) would lift everyone from the economic slump. If people are employed then the Republicans would not need to raise taxes on businesses to pay for unemployment benefits.

    So Perry’s action just shows that he and other Republicans are hypocrites in the matter of trickle down theory.

  • DdW

    SB:

    Thanks for your comments. Agree!

    One reason posed by Perry for his assenine decision is that accepting the stimulus would make part-time workers also eligible for unemployment compensation when they lose their part time jobs.

    What the compassionate Guv. ignoress is that many of these part-time workers have parrt-time jobs because that’s all they can find, and that when they lose those jobs, they are unemployed, just like having lost a full time job, with not a dime coming in…

  • AustinRoth

    So, guaranteeing at least 3 – 5 more markdowns on my DISQUS score, I am going to say what a great decision by Perry. Refusing to allow the state to get sucked into an expanded and permanent entitlement that is not funded beyond the initial years, and that would create a funding mandate over which the state would have no direct cost control authority, is called fiscal responsibility.

    • StockBoySF

      AR: “So, guaranteeing at least 3 – 5 more markdowns on my DISQUS score”…. nah.. you don’t have to worry about me marking you down. I don’t particularly believe in taking away points from people who disagree with me, or even people who don’t make much sense. I think you always have interesting comments and contribute, even if we always disagree. I can respect that and I think that’s the spirit of this sight.

      And I think your point is valid (or half valid). Though I’d like to see someone who is for tax breaks as a way of stimulating the economy and putting people back to work explain why $555 million (in virtually free money!) won’t do the same. If there really is a trickle down effect that solves economic ills by putting people to work and spending money, then there would be no need for spending money on a permanent entitlement program that is a condition to getting the half billion dollars.

      Perry’s actions guarantee less income for Texas, now and in the future, even if it’s sales tax income.

      If the Republicans did not believe in the trickle down effect of lower taxes and refused the money, then they would have some principles and could be respected. But this move makes the Republicans look like hypocrites.

      Refusal of the unemployment money will only be more costly for Texas in the long run. Not only will Texas continue to have unemployed people who are not getting benefits and spending money (which would help business in Texas), Texas will also have to repay principal and interest on a loan.

      I think I read somewhere last week that states’ legislatures can override governors’ decisions… Though I guess that would mean that the legislature needs to have a veto-proof vote.

      • AustinRoth

        SB – I wish more people shared your restraint. I certainly have been known to fly off the handle and deserve what I get, but sometimes it is frustrating getting marked down for a reasonably expressed opinion that is from a Right-leaning perspective. Oh well, I don’t overly worry myself about DISQUS scores, like I said, it is just annoying at times.

        Now, back to my (our?) home state. First, if it didn’t come with the continuing funding requirements then certainly it would be stupid for Perry to reject the money. But it does come with huge strings attached, and those strings mean the state will have to come up with huge amounts of new money in the near future. Plus there is no such thing as ‘virtually free money’, and this is not even close.

        Suppose I said I will give you $100K a year for the next three years, but you have to spend the money exactly the way I tell you, and at the end of the the three years you MUST continue to spend $100K a year as I tell you (plus COL adjustments and other increases I mandate), but I will no longer be providing the funds. Oh, and that $100k a year I will initially be giving you? I will be taking out loans in your name to provide that money to you. Interested in that deal? I wouldn’t think so.

        The money needed to fund expanded unemployment needs IS a loan, whether Texas gets loans directly, or the federal Government increases the National Debt. One path allows more local control, the other provides literary none, and in fact takes control away from the State and puts it into Federal hands.

        As for tax cut, well, I do not believe that massive tax increases are a good idea, and even many members of Congress are beginning to express concerns about doing that (of course, given the wealth and income of your average Congressman, maybe it is just looking out for #1). And I do believe that tax cuts, when applied to areas of taxation that are currently burdensome or of a nature that reduce re-investment and deployment of capitol, are a good idea in bad economic times.

        That is different than just supporting all tax cuts as good, though. There has to be logical reasoning as to how a specific tax cut would facilitate growth leading to a higher tax base that would significantly offset the lower rate for it to make sense. Of course, that is the problem, isn’t it? You can always find economists to argue for and against the effect of any given tax cut.

        What I really would like to see is true Federal spending reform, but I am more likely to win the lottery (twice) than see that happen, especially with Democrats holding both houses of Congress and the Presidency (and to be fair, I called out the Bush/Republican combination for making drunken sailor’s spending look good). I have come to believe that you need divided government for real reform, but it has to be in a much less toxic political environment than we have had since the beginning of the Clinton administration.

  • Don Quijote

    How about those thousands of Texas families who don’t know where their next meal will come from, Governor?

    They should have thought about that before they voted for a Republican, they are getting exactly what they deserve. Maybe after they go hungry fir a few month, they will understand the principles that drive the Republican Party, what’s yours is mine and what is mine is mine.

    • AustinRoth

      DQ – you make it too easy. So, on the one hand Republicans are for tax cuts, but they believe ‘what’s yours is mine and what is mine is mine’?

      Sorry, that has always been the Democrat’s playground – expanded Federalism (ongoing as we speak), regressive taxation (proposed), and redistribution of wealth (that last one was explicitly acknowledged by our current Democratic President, BTW, as a goal).

      I think you are confusing your hatred of Capitalists with your hatred of Republicans. I know, I know, in your mind they are one and the same, but they are not really. Thinking that to be true just makes it easier for people like you to have one big pool to focus your antipathy towards, I suppose.

      BTW – I would write a letter to Speaker Pelosi, but I am sure she is too busy flying around the country on military Gulfstream G-5’s (and the Air Force damn well better have one on standby for her to use!) to have time to read it.

      • Don Quijote

        but I am sure she is too busy flying around the country on military Gulfstream G-5’s (and the Air Force damn well better have one on standby for her to use!)

        I am pretty sure that Dennis Hastert did the same, and that i didn’t hear you bitch about it then.

        • AustinRoth

          DQ – hmm. Curious.

          I do remember an almost universal condemnation on this site anytime during the Bush Administration years when someone would point out ‘Clinton/Carter/Democrats have done it, too’. They would be told that past sins do not forgive current ones, ‘two wrongs do not make a right’, and that ‘Johnny did it’ was not acceptable to your parents, and is not acceptable now.

          I guess situational ethics strike again.

          • Don Quijote

            DQ – hmm. Curious.

            Why?

            A) I didn’t bring up the issue.
            B) It’s a perk of the job, there is nothing wrong with using the perks.
            C) She didn’t create the perk, it’s been there for years.
            D) I don’t remember anyone complaining about the perk in the past.
            E) I expect that as soon as a Republican gets that job, every republican who has been complaining about Pelosi using the perks of office will stop complaining about the New Speaker taking advantage of the perks of the job.

  • DdW

    SB:

    On overriding, from he Statesman:

    Lawmakers could still go around Perry and try to enact the expansions with changes in state law. But with his announcement Thursday, which won praise from some business and small-government groups, Perry made clear that any effort risks a veto.

    The majority in the Texas legislature is Republican

    Dorian

  • DdW

    AR:

    On “funded mandate”:

    From the Statesman:

    The Texas Workforce Commission estimates that the state could qualify for the full $555 million with changes to existing law that would cost at least $368 million over five years. To be eligible for all the money, lawmakers must change how the state calculates a worker’s eligibility and extend benefits to more people, including those looking for part-time work.

    So, “fiscal responsibility” means to Perry refusing $555 in funds that will help the drying Texas unemployment fund NOW, and help out Texas unemployed NOW, because it may “cost” the state $368 million over the next five years…

    Strings attached”? Yes those horrible strings of helping out those unemployed part time workers, who were probably working part time because that is all they coulf get after they lost their full time jobs–if they were lucky–to support their familes.

    Now, that is compassionate conservatism!

    • AustinRoth

      Dorien – so, over the 5 year life of the stimulus, Texas would get a net of $187M. But AFTER that 5 years, they MUST keep funding it. The ‘strings’ are not just the part-time worker issue. And that $368M figure is based on current levels, not the almost-sure-to- increase levels coming. I would rather Texas directly borrow and fund their needs and maintain cost control capability.

      We can agree to disagree on this.

  • CStanley

    So, guaranteeing at least 3 – 5 more markdowns on my DISQUS score,

    LOL, I consider the markdowns a badge of honor because it’s obvious that some people resort to pettiness when they’re losing an argument.

    • AustinRoth

      CS – I love self-fulling prophesies. And not just one, but TWO comments in this thread. I am on a roll, baby!

  • Don Quijote

    AustinRoth,

    Let them eat cake!

  • CStanley

    DE- I assume you deplore Don Quixote’s statement about Rick Perry and the voters of Texas since he’s using the same rhetoric that you keep quoting from Rush Limbaugh (basically, that the he hopes the policies blow up in the face of the voters so that they’ll learn their lesson)

    Now about the topic at hand- first, why wouldn’t it be more important to preserve jobs (unemployment insurance premiums and/or taxation to pay for increased benefits DOES affect the bottom line of small businesses, which provide most jobs and the most job growth in our economy) instead of increasing measly unemployment benefit checks?

    And if it is important to increase the unemployment benefits (I’m open to that argument in the current economic climate, particularly the point that SB makes about the stimulatory effect of spending the unemployment checks) then why didn’t Congress structure this in a way that it would be temporary, so that it wouldn’t create a future unfunded mandate for the states? If the purpose was really to get more federal funds into the hands of the unemployed, that would have been a way to structure it without forcing the governors into these decisions.

  • CStanley

    Oh, I just realized a potential answer to my own question. Perhaps Congress didn’t structure the stimulus bill that way because no one even had time to read the damn thing, so who knows if they even realized what they were doing.

    But of course they had to hurry because we were about to go off a cliff. I’m glad that Obama NOW realizes that ‘things are never as bad as they say they are, or as good as they say they are.’ Seems he didn’t quite understand that a few weeks ago when the $789 billion had to be pushed through without further debate because otherwise we’d be turning a “crisis into a catastrophe.”

  • CStanley

    You go, AR!

    How low can you go?

  • DdW

    CS “the same rhetoric that you keep quoting from Rush Limbaugh (basically, that the he hopes the policies blow up in the face of the voters so that they’ll learn their lesson)”

    Glad we agree on this…and thanks for answewring your own question??

  • DdW

    Let’s do that, AR

  • casualobserver

    Per Stockboy—The Republicans argue that taxes should be cut, even if it is a small amount, because people will spend money and everyone will be lifted from the economic slump.

    What honest-speaking people define as a tax cut is giving the benefit of the tax cut to the people who actually paid the tax and let the increased spending flow from them.

    To claim the DemCong are cutting my taxes while I never see a penny of it in my pocket is liberal logic at its finest.

  • CStanley

    I agree that’s one way to paraphrase the Limbaugh quote that you keep using, but as I said in the past it still doesn’t mean that he’s wishing for policies to fail because it makes him look good- which seems to be the motivation that you attribute to him. If you believe that policies being enacted will fail sooner or later, then wishing for them to quickly cause the voters to rethink the policies will be helpful to everyone in the long run.

    Limbaugh has repeatedly put more context to that quote to explain that’s what he meant, although you keep quoting the one bit without the context.

    And DQ didn’t put any such context with his- just that the voters in TX deserve what they get (which in his view is bad- I’m not agreeing with that view obviously.)

  • HemmD

    May I suggest that this debate be revisited if or when Texas unemployment approaches 10% like some of the North Central states are seeing? Texas has every right to NOT take the money. S Carolina, however, may preview how bad things can get.
    They have a 10% unemployment rate that continues to grow. It is also the state where that cute little photo op schoolgirl comes from that asked Obama to fix her school. Don’t you hate political theater?
    Like Texas, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford also wants to refuse the Stimulus money, and because he faces term limits, he can withstand the political blow back. The Republican led state legislature is not so sure.

    Maybe it matters by state. Texas is prosperous and 6% unemployment isn’t enough to be politically dangerous. Its great to argue that the Federal government is interfering with state’s business, but when you’re like S Carolina, you already receive more money from the Fed than you contribute.

  • CStanley

    That is a great point, HemmD, though I draw different conclusions from it. The whole point of the federalist system that our founders set up is that the states can better determine what is right for their own citizens than someone in a remote location can. That’s why it makes sense for the governors and state legislators to be able to determine how best to handle unemployment in their states.

    Unfortunately though our political climate now is so hyperpartisan that instead of looking at their interests in terms of the constituents they serve, the Democrats at the state level want to support the Democratic president in DC and the Republicans at the state level are more likely to oppose him on principle. In both cases, what they should be doing is determining what they really believe is the best policy for the citizens of their states.

    Part of the problem for those of us who observe and comment is that our philosophical beliefs line up with the parties so even if we don’t think we’re being partisan it ends up that way. People who ‘think like Democrats’ believe that it’s very important to extend unemployment benefits, while those of us who ‘think like Republicans’ believe that we have to be careful not to hamstring businesses (esp small businesses) by increasing the costs that they pay to cover unemployment benefits- because we believe that all workers or potential workers would be much better served by having job opportunities rather than inadequate (even with the proposed increases) unemployment benefits.

  • PWT

    Nobody has mentioned the viscous cycle that the unfunded mandate, the continuation of unemployment payments at the proscribed level of the stimulus years once the stimulus expires, would create. That is, by the Governor’s logic, that taxes on business and those that actually pay income taxes would be increased in order to keep the benefit levels constant once the stimulus funds expired. the increase in taxes on business would leave less money to pay workers leading to even greater unemployment obligations by the state and therefore businesses and income tax payers.

    Many expect that the economy will have rebounded by the time that the stimulus expires, but, if we follow Japan’s example, it may not. If not, the increased obligations will do nothing to spur growth and economic growth is the only way to get people working again.

  • HemmD

    CS
    The Federalist System also imposed the no slavery clause on states, struck down anti-mysogenation laws, and created interstate trade laws that over-ride the local; so the system you site is definitely a two-way street.

    Part of the problem is politics, not so much ideology. I don’t “think like a Democrat” and if pressed, self-reflection on your part would show “you don’t think like a Republican” either, not all the time, not under all situations. If we were here to just spout the memorized talking points of a particular party, why would we waste out time? Both of us has seen both parties screw things up enough that we wouldn’t want to claim that association.

    Ideology is a little more difficult to discuss. An example:
    I believe in a free market. well, of course i do. but I also know corporation’s only motive is profit, and so I know regulations are required to keep capitalism from stealing me blind. So, am I for free Enterprise or am I anti-business? It’s just not as easy as the political talking points would have it.

    I found this web site not to long ago, and as much as some may wish otherwise, the intelligent discussions are going to make me keep coming back. The camps here seem well established, but I’d like to think pragmatism to solve real world problems fits in both without denting anyone’s ideology too much.

  • CStanley

    Hemm, we’re both saying the same thing in regard to ideology and partisanship, but phrasing it in different ways. My point was that the fact that we all share certain core beliefs with one party or the other can make it seem to our political opponents that we’re supporting something out of partisanship, when really we’re expressing agreement with one party or the other on one of its guiding principles.

    And when we focus the debates on the details, I think that’s when we can get past stereotyping each other or dismissing each other as partisans- because we all often start from one philosophical perspective but can see why those philosophies apply in certain ways to particular situations but not others. It’s the people who can’t get past the talking points and sound bite arguments who really are partisans because they’ll support the party line without really thinking it through or being able to intellectually support the arguments for or against.

    And yeah, obviously the Federalist system isn’t perfect in and of itself, but to a great extent the judicial branch handles that (albeit slowly.) And what I’m asserting is that it was put in as a design feature, not a bug- so instead of removing the federalism concept by making everything the provenance of the federal govt, we ought to make sure we correct any grave errors as we’ve done in the past but not try to micromanage the states from DC.

    • HemmD

      CS
      Sorry, I didn’t pick up up in the thread as you just stated.
      BTW I actually think that the Federalist systems is pretty close to perfect. States do their parochial best based upon their local cultural / societal / economic prerogatives, and the Federal government from time to time has to correct their subjective attitudes. Remember, it was that radical Abe Lincoln that insisted that State law had to bow to that of the centralized government. The tension of States Rights vs Central government largely follows the political landscape of the moment, and people’s response is based upon who’s cow is gored.

      In the case of Texas, there’s more politics than ideology at work. At 6%, his base is largely unaffected by the downturn. If it hits 10+, the tangible quality of an overloaded relief fund may make the action follow a more pragmatic response by the gov or the state legislature.

      I lean toward pragmatism first. If thee governor worries about the future of unfunded mandates for the part time employer, maybe his primary concern to work to make unemployment lower, thus state outlay would be lower in the future. His solution is a political statement to serve his party , and I think mine is plan of action to serve my constituents.

  • DdW

    It is my understanding that the Texas unemployment compensation trust fund may run dry by September or October, and Texas may need to seek a handout (“loan” )from the federal government anyhow.

    Why not accept this $555m “handout” now ( even with those horrible strings attached that some of the part time employed who lose their jobs may be eligible for unemployment compensation–what a tragedy!), and ride out this crisis. Unlike Limbaugh and others, I have hopes that we’ll get out of it in two to three years at the most.

    As mentioned before, the state could qualify for the full $555 million with changes to existing law that would cost at least $368 million over five years.

    These are extraordinary times, and perhaps Mr. Perry needs to swallow some of his GOP pride in order to help out more needy Texans in the short run, and leave politics at the door for a while.

    Don’t know…just a thought

  • As yet another denizen of Texas, I’m struggling with Perry’s decision.

    One of the reasons Texas is prosperous (as HmmD noticed) has to do with a somewhat localized cultural ethic. Some of the stereotypes, even though they’re frequently caricaturized, are true. There’s an enormous independent streak here. Work hard and make your own way is the rule, and it’s supported by (relatively) low taxes and a vigorous (though somewhat chaotic) boomtown feeling.

    So I understand why Perry (whom I detest on many levels) would go there. It’s not just logical; it’s probably correct.

    However, I think Perry’s playing politics rather than being principled. Why? Because the natural extension of this principle would be that Texans take care of their own across the board, and yet we’ve accepted plenty of federal assistance in the past. The position seems inconsistent to me.

  • HemmD

    Polimom

    I think you’re right. If strict ideology is driving Perry, why did he accept help for Ike? It’s great to have a local stereotype one is proud of; it builds a cohesive society. It unfortunately also lends itself to pat answers politically. If Texans take care of their own, how’s Galveston doing these days?

    I’m not trying to snark. It’s just that the situational ethics of when one can have the luxury of ideology is limited by the degree of necessity.

  • AustinRoth

    You know, there does seem to be a LOT of us Texans on this board.

  • CStanley

    I think that’s an odd way of looking at things, PM (and Hemm).

    Why would we not want people like Perry to see that rules have exceptions? A natural disaster is generally thought of differently than a downturning economy, because in the first case the local resources are suddenly wiped out beyond the local population’s ability to replace them. And every state has signed on to the idea of a sort of national insurance policy whereby everyone accepts federal funds as payout and continually accepts a premium that the citizens pay into the insurance pool for FEMA assistance. This doesn’t create an unfunded mandate going forward, because the states aren’t going to have to come up with extra local resources down the line for funding after the initial federal funds run dry.

    That’s the distinction here (as PWT pointed out earlier) because the very condition of accepting federal funds for unemployment benefits with strings attached will harm the business community later on if/when the recovery gets underway.

    If anything, a better question would be why states accepted the education funding that came with No Child Left Behind since that also created unfunded mandates for the states. The way that education is funded in general though, I don’t think allows for governors to opt out at all without losing the entire pot, and I don’t think any state could handle that shift in funds completely back to the local level (though I’d like to see them try!)

  • HemmD

    CS

    Close, but the logic is self referential. If the economy improves, why would the pay-out of insurance be high. Is the increased cost in unemployment insurance across the state such a disastrous increase it will somehow break the backs of business? Really?

    Morally, you placed yourself in a rather tough spot. Let’s allow the part-timers to suffer during bad economic times so that we don’t have to pay a small amount more when the economy is once again humming along? Besides, it’s not like the business just doesn’t raise it’s price structure a smidgen. Every business would incur the same small increase, so don’t tell me it will somehow lessen the profit margin or put company at an economic disadvantage. Politically, the increase is a talking point, morally and practically, not so much. Gas stations function under this precept every day.

    Lastly, if businesses don’t have to cover part time-employees with unemployment insurance, don’t you just know that businesses already adopt the tack of employing JUST part-time people? What a good deal for the profit margin, no unemployment insurance! Remember, a corporation’s sole purpose is to maximize profit, so don’t tell me that’s not the real political agenda here. If government is to facilitate business, that’s fine. If government is to facilitate the populace, that’s a problem. The Constitution only mentions people, not corporations.

  • AR — “You know, there does seem to be a LOT of us Texans on this board.” Pretty amazing, ain’t it? There’s probably some deeper meaning there, but I haven’t a clue what it might be.

    :>

    C Stanley — I think your NTSB funding is a terrific example.
    Edit — OOPS — NCLB. (duh)

  • DdW

    Hey guys and gals…four consecutive days of stockmarket ups (albeit a couple of small ones)– terrible! It’s not supposed to happen with Obama stimulus packages. ( I know, what goes down must come up.) My luck, it’ll probably tank again, Monday

    I just heard the other GOP icon, Hannety, proclaimg that the economy runs always in cycles, and that this one “eventually” will go up again. But you know what will be “sad” about such a recovery, according to Hannety?

    That Obama may get credit for the recovery. Wouldn’t that be an utter disaster!!

    Do the Republicans know something we don’t, and are they preparing to take credit for it, even after opposing it every step of the waY/?? Hmmmm”

  • casualobserver

    Seems to me the market rise started from the relatively positive news released this week by the banks you want to nationalize.

    Regardless of Hannity, it is certainly nothing the Dems can take credit for.

  • AustinRoth

    Well, fair is fair. If some of the drop is going to be attributed to Obama’s negativity, the stimulus pork package, and the threat of higher taxes, then some of the credit has to go to a more positive message this week from Obama, and the indications that the Congress is not four-square behind huge tax hikes.

    Plus, irrationality runs both directions, both driving stocks too high, and too low.

    All that said, I think it is mainly just a dead cat bounce. The economy’s fundamentals haven’t changed miraculously this week, after all.

  • kritt11

    So much for Compassionate Conservatism, LOL! Maybe Perry is only compassionate when business owners, who are also big GOP donors, are suffering!

  • CStanley

    Kim, it’s small business owners whose livelihood is at stake. They’re the ones who create and provide most of the jobs in the country, and governors are right to look out for them because it’s in the best interest of the citizens. Would you rather have a job or a (maximum) $300 unemployment check?

    And small business owners are not ‘big GOP donors’- they’re not in a position to organize and pay off candidates at all.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com