Florida's unemployment rate is a whopping 12%. It's not "doing fine." Last year, their budget gap was enormous. They're getting slammed just like everyone else, if not worse.
Is California (or New York, or Illinois) allowed to send their bills to New Mexico, or Alaska, or practically the entire Southern US? Because they're the ones who send pennies and get dollars back, year in and year out.
State bailouts are a fantastic idea, and need to be pursued rigorously. All the job creation programs in the world are not going to help if most states are making deep budget cuts for temporary lack of funds. I'm none too thrilled with the management of California, which appears to be a cautionary tale against combining drug use and direct democracy, but if they start slashing jobs, that just sinks the economy deeper into recession.
The money going to states was also hardly hidden. From the Act's statement of purpose:
Regardless, how does any of this give the US government a motive to make a moderate error in unemployment figures, and then correct it? Just because you can draw a general link between economy and employment (no kidding...), it doesn't mean any of it has relevance for this topic.
-Jester
Quote:Residents of non-bailout states should be outraged that they will be taxed to pay for the fiscal mismanagement of certain states(i.e. California).Really? Because since time immemorial, California has been receiving only 0.80 back in spending for every dollar it sends to the feds. California has been footing the bill for the rest of the country for ages.
Is California (or New York, or Illinois) allowed to send their bills to New Mexico, or Alaska, or practically the entire Southern US? Because they're the ones who send pennies and get dollars back, year in and year out.
State bailouts are a fantastic idea, and need to be pursued rigorously. All the job creation programs in the world are not going to help if most states are making deep budget cuts for temporary lack of funds. I'm none too thrilled with the management of California, which appears to be a cautionary tale against combining drug use and direct democracy, but if they start slashing jobs, that just sinks the economy deeper into recession.
The money going to states was also hardly hidden. From the Act's statement of purpose:
Quote:The purposes of this Act include the following: (...)Hidden in plain sight, I guess.
(5) To stabilize State and local government budgets, in order to minimize and avoid reductions in essential services and counterproductive state and local tax increases.
Regardless, how does any of this give the US government a motive to make a moderate error in unemployment figures, and then correct it? Just because you can draw a general link between economy and employment (no kidding...), it doesn't mean any of it has relevance for this topic.
-Jester