Obama's first failed appointment

[classicman]

Redux - I'm not sure of the "talking points. It was not politicians on the interview. They were talking about it and I asked for that reason. IF - If the administration is going to force the states into doing that, then that is wrong - if not then they are.

Originally Posted by classicman

Redux - I'm not sure of the "talking points. It was not politicians on the interview. They were talking about it and I asked for that reason. IF - If the administration is going to force the states into doing that, then that is wrong - if not then they are.

I'll give you an example of those "talking points" about forcing states to do something.

The stimulus bill includes $$$ to increase the amount and length of time a person can collect unemployment insurance, in light of the fact that there are more people losing their jobs every day (500,000+ in January alone, over 2 million in the last year) and experiencing unemployment for long periods of time.

The limits on the amount of unemployment insurance and the length of time a person can collect are established by state law, not federal. In order for these federal funds to reach those in need, a state may have to change its law.

The administration is not forcing the state to change its law. But as a practical matter, a state may need legislative action to comply with its own law.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Redux

The limits on the amount of unemployment insurance and the length of time a person can collect are established by state law, not federal. In order for these federal funds to reach those in need, a state may have to change its law.

PA has the length of benefits limit set by state law. Numerous times, when unemployment reached a set threshold, weeks were added as a "Federal Extension of benefits", I presume with Federal money. When the rate falls below the threshold the extra weeks stop, I don't think any changes of the law or action by the state legislature is needed.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

PA has the length of benefits limit set by state law. Numerous times, when unemployment reached a set threshold, weeks were added as a "Federal Extension of benefits", I presume with Federal money. When the rate falls below the threshold the extra weeks stop, I don't think any changes of the law or action by the state legislature is needed.

You're right and I think that is at the heart of the "talking points"

Sarah Palin:

Host Greta Van Susteren asked Palin if she thought that Obama should veto it, “I would call for a veto, absolutely, and let’s do this right, understanding that there is going to be some kind of stimulus package. There is going to be some kind of attempts for economic recovery. I say construction projects that put people to work, that fits the bill, but these big huge expanded social programs where we are adding people to the rolls, and then the economic stimulus package dollars from the feds are going to dry up at some point. States then are going to be beholden to these programs. We will have to pay for them. That’s not right, that’s not fair. We just want to make sure that whatever is it is that is passed makes sense for the states, for the residents of our individual states.”

http://politicususa.com/en/Palin-Stimulus-Bill

Ignorance or intentional misinformation?

WIth most governors, I would write it off as simply a political response that plays loosely with the facts.

With Palin, it might be ignorance.

It sounds like she is opposed to a temporary expansion of unemployment benefits to residents of Alaska who may have reached the limit by making a case that she would be "stuck with paying for them" in the future.

But she'll take the money for Alaska in the bill.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Redux

You're right and I think that is at the heart of the "talking points"

Sarah Palin:

Ignorance or intentional misinformation?

WIth most governors, I would write it off as simply a political response that plays loosely with the facts.

With Palin, it might be ignorance.

It sounds like she is opposed to a temporary expansion of unemployment benefits to residents of Alaska who may have reached the limit by making a case that she would be "stuck with paying for them" in the future.

But she'll take the money for Alaska in the bill.

pffft. Sarah Palin. Have you heard she owes a whole bunch of back taxes?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

pffft. Sarah Palin. Have you heard she owes a whole bunch of back taxes?

Yea, that is the rumor, however there is no rumor to the fact that a number of Obama appointees and choices for high level cabinet positions owe.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Yea, that is the rumor, however there is no rumor to the fact that a number of Obama appointees and choices for high level cabinet positions owe.

No rumor at all. Fact:

http://www.examiner.com/x-2968-Alask...em-rules-State

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

PA has the length of benefits limit set by state law. Numerous times, when unemployment reached a set threshold, weeks were added as a "Federal Extension of benefits", I presume with Federal money. When the rate falls below the threshold the extra weeks stop, I don't think any changes of the law or action by the state legislature is needed.

And yet several Republican governors are still putting out talking points misrepresenting the expansion of unemployment insurance in the stimulus bills.

Mississippi Republican Governor Haley Barbour may follow suit in rejecting part of President Obama's economic stimulus package that would expand unemployment insurance. In a recent interview with Fox News, Barbour said that he does not agree with changing state rules to allow people that are able to work full time, the opportunity to receive unemployment compensation if they choose not to.

http://www.fox40now.com/news/local/40030927.html

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by classicman

Redux - I'm not sure of the "talking points. It was not politicians on the interview. They were talking about it and I asked for that reason. IF - If the administration is going to force the states into doing that, then that is wrong - if not then they are.

Legally, the federal "government" may hand out mandates to the states, provided those mandates come already funded.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by TGRR

Legally, the federal "government" may hand out mandates to the states, provided those mandates come already funded.

This was the crux of the discussion. IIRC, It was initially funded by the stimulus package , but it wasn't clear who was funding what in the future.