"LET THEM EAT CAKE"

The General Assembly Republicans just rejected $150 million federal dollars to help Virginia's unemployed.

Sen. Kenneth Cuccinelli, R-Fairfax County, said Kaine and legislative Democrats used the dire economy to force through unpalatable policy...  “We are being used. Actually, our constituents and now the unemployed are being used by this administration to put a gun to the head of the General Assembly and force through a bad bill that would never survive on its own,“

Let me get this straight.  Ken Cuccinelli is saying the unemployed were being "used" by Tim Kaine because Tim wanted to expand their benefits?!?!?!  That is one of the dumbest things to ever come out of Ken's mouth.  This is Cuccinelli's "Let Them Eat Cake" moment and it will haunt him for the rest of his political career.  At least until voters realize they only need to add one more person to the unemployment line to be represented adequately in the State Senate.

Right Ron?

Comments

[Brian W. Schoeneman]

This isn't a "let them eat cake" kind of situation. There are some serious policy implications here that need to be looked at.

Expanding unemployment benefits to part-time workers greatly expands the number of people who qualify for benefits. This, in turn, will result in a significant draw down in funds for the unemployment system. The system is paid for by taxes on employers. The more people on unemployment, the more money goes out the door from the trust fund, and the greater likelihood that the states will deplete their funding - which is especially true if this recession lasts a long time. At that point, we'll be forced to take loans from the federal government, which will have to be repaid.

Unemployment is basically a tax on employers and the more unemployed, the greater the tax. In the end, companies will be forced to pay into a system that makes it harder for them to create jobs.

Unemployment benefits have already been extended twice, and those of us on unemployment (which includes me) can stay on it for a year. Will expanding benefits really provide that much help?

I don't have a problem with allowing benefits to go to those who are in training programs.

There is plenty of evidence that long term, high paying unemployment benefits can have a negative impact. If benefits are too high, there's no incentive to go back to work. If benefits last too long, there's no incentive to go elsewhere to find work where it may be available.

That $150 million would be better spent in modernizing and updating the unemployment system so that getting on it isn't such a nerve wracking and annoying process. Constantly busy phone lines, no one responding to emails, and poorly trained staff plague the system.

In the end, there are a lot better uses of that $150 million that could create jobs instead of increasing the incentives to remain unemployed. But that money wasn't offered with no strings attached.

Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with the unemployment system. And if I were only thinking of myself, I'd wish the checks were bigger, too. But I would rather be working, and I think most of my fellow unemployed would agree with me. But this policy doesn't strike me as what we need to be doing to fix the economy.

[truthnjustice]

Let the underemployed starve in this horrible economy. Very pro-life policy from the Cooch.... NOT

[Eday]

OMG! How could a campaign manager ever let a video like that go out?

[B]

"Let them work."

[Not Spiro T. Agnew]

Chairman Kaine's efforts here reflect the penchant of those on the Democrat side of the aisle to always fall back to their typical default setting: raise taxes.

Chairman Kaine's efforts to use this $150 million in this way would result in a required increase in taxes payed out by businesses both small and large. The General Assembly was right to reject this.

Perhaps people should look at what the GOP did in this area during the 2009 session by reviewing Delegate Sam Nixon's bill, HB 1889, which postpones the scheduled increase in the minimum amount of wages an employee is required to earn before becoming eligible for VA unemployment benefits.

Also, Chairman Kaine must not want you to know that the Commonwealth is already set to receive over $62 million in federal money to support insurance programs for unemployed Virginians.

[Pete in Williamsburg]

Yeesh, what a video. Makes Bobby Jindal look like John Wayne.

[looking ahead]

These tactics are a bit like drug dealers giving their mark the first “hit” for free, knowing that down the line they will have a customer for life (however this free hit is provided with taxpayer money).

The first “hit” of stimulus money causes tax increases down the line for businesses just as the first “hit” of TARP money has gotten the government control of who in private industry gets to keep their job or money. AIG gets raked over the coals for 165m in bonuses while Fannie and Freddie get away with over 200m of the same.

This type of intervention should scare voters of all stripes, this year it may be the democrats pushing their agenda next it may be the republicans.

[Bubby Hussein, Hillbilly Sheikh]

So, to the perfect storm of lost jobs and a dwindling Virginia economy the Republican solution is...wait for it...NOTHING!

[A Voter]

Since NLS & crew like this so much, how about they tell us how they are going to raise the needed capital in order to keep the program going in the years to come, once Uncle Sam stops paying out.

Since anyone with an elementary knowledge of economics would tell you that raising taxes are detrimental to an economy, I'm certain that they wouldn't suggest this... right?

So, please tell us how you will raise an additional $150 million every year to keep these benefits flowing.

[Not Larry Sabato]

I don't think we need increased benefits once the economy is better. This is a temporary solution for people in need, not a permanent government program.

[A Voter]

Excellent, so once we see better economic numbers you will make a posting that demands we dole out less money and provide less benefits to the unemployed?

[Not Larry Sabato]

We didn't increase the benefits yesterday.. Why would we decrease our current system when the economy gets better?

[A Voter]

In the hypothetical world, you're advocating for, the VA legislature would approve this $150 million increase in benefits, right?

So, once the money runs out, and liberal politicians (who benefit from people being dependent on the government) start demanding that we not take unemployment benefits away from the unemployed... you would be the first to stand up and demand that workers have their new unemployment benefits stripped away, since they were only supposed to be available during bad economic times. Is that what you're saying?

[Not Larry Sabato]

Dude, don't be such a dumbass. The legislature changes the benefits whenever they want because they control the money. It's a very simple process to set a sunset date to programs you run during a down economy.

[Brian W. Schoeneman]

NLS, A voter is right. You know it's nearly impossible politically to decrease a benefit once it's been passed. If this expansion happens now, when it sunsets (if there is an automatic provision) or when it is repealed, the side doing it will have to face a barrage of criticism that they are cutting benefits to the unemployed and that they don't care about people out of work, etc.

I've heard Kaine's arguments for the expansion, but in the end, I think the 'cure' here is more painful that the problem. We can't afford to accept another major liability on the books when we're already facing major deficits. And we will lose our reputation as the best state for business if we add more taxes during a time when our employers are already hurting because of the economy. It's just not a good idea.

The best way to solve the unemployment problem right now is to turn the economy around and get businesses back to creating jobs. The best way to do that is to unfreeze the credit markets and ensure that employers have access to the funds they need to expand and create jobs.

That may include lowering the corporate tax rate. I know that's not what Democrats want to hear, but it's historically been the best way to quickly provide a boost to employers.

[Not Larry Sabato]

The idea that a government program can't expire or ever be decreased comes from a fundamental mistrust of the government. I'd suggest that if you all are that paranoid about the government being against you that you seek counseling from professional help before you end up mumbling to yourself in some combine in Waco, Texas.

[Bubby Hussein, Hillbilly Sheikh]

After cheerleading 8 years of Bush, 12 years of Republican majority in the Congress, and a record of economic calamity, we can safely assume that Conservative voters are either fiscally illiterate, easily distracted, or stupid. Either way, it's a shame they're still a bumbling majority in the HoD.

[Not a moron]

AMEN NLS! It's called a sunset clause A Voter. It means the legislation dies at a certain point unless re-enacted. If the House Republicans were sooo worried about not raising taxes on businesses in the paltry amount of 38 CENTS A MONTH per worker (their numbers, which I don't believe, not mine), then let them make their case TWO YEARS FROM NOW when the state would actually have to pay for this. It's beyond stupid to TURN AWAY FREE MONEY. I mean, come on, even you presumably are smart enough to accept a $20 bill if someone offered it to you on the street.

This is one of the most flagrant examples of letting ideology trump what's best for VIRGINIANS that I've seen in a long, long time. You wonder why you haven't elected a governor since Gilmore? There it is, right there. Making stupid, idiotic decisions that make no sense to the average Virginian for ideological reasons. If there was any lesson that you should have learned from the elections of Mark Warner (twice), Tim Kaine and Jim Webb, it's that Virginians want solutions, not ideology. This was a cost-free solution that the House Republicans turned their back on and I hope its the difference in November that causes them to lose 6 seats in the House. Still won't help those unemployed, but maybe, just maybe that message of solutions over partisanship will start to sink into your thick head because ALL of Virginia would be better off if it did.

[VA Blogger]

N.A. Moron, first of all, it's not free. That Trillion dollars that Obama just spent wasn't "offered to us on the street".

Second, it's not ideology. While the Chairman of the DNC wants to believe it's about "shaking our fists at Washington", the reality is that this represents a partially funded mandate (only slightly better than an unfunded one). We greatly expand our unemployment benefits, and the federal government only supplies us with the first $125 million. Everything after that comes out of the pockets of Virginia's businesses.

Just because someone comes up with a "solution" doesn't mean it's a good one. This "solution" would increase the burden on businesses in Virginia, causing several to either go out of business or relocate, swelling even more the ranks of the unemployed. It would also cause many companies to not relocate to Virginia, prohibiting those who are unemployed from finding jobs.

The $125 million wouldn't cover the costs for the duration of the recession, and once the government enacts an entitlement program, it is just about impossible to get rid of it. You and Ben argue now that we can simply get rid of this expansion of benefits in a few years; however, surely in a few years you two will be leading the charge to keep the expansion. After all, if we found a way to pay for it during bad times, we can keep paying for it in good times.

Furthermore, there's a lot of uncertainty whether Virginia would qualify for federal money if a sunset clause was added.

At the end of the day, Republicans in the General Assembly choose a pro-jobs agenda that helps all Virginains, rather than increasing the pressure on businesses to create more unemployment. They should be congratulated, and Chairman Kaine should educate himself and understand the logical reasons behind the Republicans' vote instead of assuming it's some sort of anti-stimulus ideology.

[Not Larry Sabato]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

VA Blogger- Did you miss the part about this costing businesses 38 cents a month per worker? In other words, for a company with 100 employees, it would cost $38 a month.

That 38 bucks is a JOB KILLER!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

[looking ahead]

"The idea that a government program can't expire or ever be decreased comes from a fundamental mistrust of the government"

Our entire constitutional system is based on a fundamental mistrust of government.

[Brian W. Schoeneman]

First of all, the idea that a government program can't expire or ever be decreased doesn't come from a fundamental mistrust of the government. It comes from a recognition that rolling back a benefit is exceedingly hard to do. And I doubt sincerely that Democrats would simply sit back and not attack Republicans if they were to vote to repeal this when unemployment drops.

In this environment, any additional costs to business is a job killer. That 38 cents may not seem like much, but it can add up over time. And since the chances are that this will end up being a permanent program if it were enacted, that's a permanent tax increase.

The stimulus money isn't "free money." There's no such thing as a free lunch. Taxpayers will be called upon to cover that debt at some point.

Virginians do want solutions, not ideology. So why is it that you can't see that providing more unemployment benefits isn't a solution for unemployment?

Unemployment is the problem. Unemployment insurance treats the symptom, not the disease. We should be looking at ways to stimulate employers to create jobs, not tax them even more - regardless of how minimal you think the tax is.

This program won't solve the problem, and when the federal money runs out, it's just another debt we'll have to pay.

[Not a moron]

VA Blogger, I just can't let this one go...it's that asinine to me.

First, it's free to the STATE GOVERNMENT. That's money that's going to get spent, one way or the other. Republicans lost that battle on the floors of the US House and Senate. Not a single person in Virginia voted for Bill Howell or any other delegate so that they could lead our national government. It's not their job, period. If they didn't like the stimulus bill, they were free to lobby our Virginia Congressmen and Senators. But that battle is over.

Second, it's only an unfunded mandate if the program extends beyond whatever sunset was in the bill. If the sunset had been set at 1 year, for instance, then there's not a chance in the world that the money would have been used. If it had been set at 2 years, we still probably wouldn't have run through the money. I haven't seen any other Republican making that argument, so I'm going to assume you just made that up.

Third, an argument that you make and that House R's made is that it's impossible to eliminate an entitlement program. Well, if the House R's are right and it's unneeded, what's the worry? If you're sure that opposition to this program is the right way to go, then the votes won't be there to extend it when it sunsets, right? If it's a matter of principle, then they could have killed it in two years and made their case to the voters. In either of those two scenarios, the people of Virginia would have been better off seen our economy stimulated for 1 or 2 years at no cost to the state budget. So that's a non-starter.

POPULAR programs are impossible to kill. There's nothing special about a program being an entitlement program that makes it hard to eliminate. If it's popular, it stays. If it's not and there's a will to eliminate it, the program doesn't.

Third, with fewer unemployed, the cost goes down, right? So the argument that it's a $125 million entitlement program is ridiculous. In TWO YEARS, I'm sure there will be people who argue that we shouldn't eliminate this expansion and in order to make that happen, someone will introduce a bill in the legislature. That bill would be voted up or down just like any other. Where's the concern? The House R's are extremely efficient at killing bills they don't like.

Finally, you say, "At the end of the day, Republicans in the General Assembly choose [sic] a pro-jobs agenda that helps all Virginains [sic], rather than increasing the pressure on businesses to create more unemployment." That's just a flat out lie. This bill does not cost a single Virginia business one plug nickel unless it's continued beyond a sunset date. This is argument is about two years too early.

Now that I think about it, I think the House R's are terrified they're going to lose the majority before 2010. Other than rote ideology, their actions don't make a lick of sense. You only kill this thing now if you don't think you'll have the votes to kill it then. Frankly, I hope they are right and that doing what they did yesterday moves them a little further down the path.

[Read the Bill]

FYI..you guys are not arguing over the actual language of the bill, because if you were you would understand that the real argument was over PART-TIME unemployment insurance,not full time employment and there cannot be a sunset clause because that was a stipulation of actually getting the stimulus money. The money from the stimulus cannot be used if you sunset the program!

[Brian W. Schoeneman]

Not a moron, you keep talking about a sunset provision like this was some kind of an emergency program - I can't find a copy of the bill that was struck down, but the way I've been reading the stories about this issue, this was a permanent change in our unemployment insurance law required by the federal government in order to get access to those funds.

We are already running out of money in our unemployment trust fund - this $125 million would keep us going for a little while, but unless things turn around in the next year, eventually we're going to run low and that will trigger an automatic tax increase.

Unemployment is a lagging indicator. Even if the economy starts to turn around, unemployment won't start going down for months afterwards.

There has got to be a better way to stimulate the economy in Virginia than taking a one-time handout from the federal government and creating an almost certainly permanent expansion of benefits that we'll be paying for long after this crisis is over.

[victory]

NLS just smacked down 3 commenters at once. Good job!

[notsophialoren]

If you are pro-life then you want all the babies to be born. Yet why do you not want to feed them once they are born? Their parents need a job or unemployment benefits.

[Not Sam Rasoul (Praise Allah!)]

It's all Sam Rasoul's fault.

[Not Sam Rasoul (Praise Allah!)]

Yeah, remember that Sam Rasoul and Ken Cuccinelli got money from Yaqub Mirza!!

[VA Blogger]

Ben, is that $4.05 per worker with the stimulus money or is that projected for after it runs out?

[VA Blogger]

NA Moron, I agree a sunset provision would have changed the equation. But, two things:

1) There was no sunset provision on the bill that was voted on, which means the argument is moot. Republicans had the votes to kill it regardless, and Democrats in the GA and Chairman Kaine apparently didn't see a need to include one.

2) Again, I'm not certain that a sunset provision would have been possible given the conditions Congress demanded to get the money in the first place.

So while a sunset provision may have been nice, your arguments are completely hypothetical because there wasn't one.

[novamiddleman]

Heres the ultimate kicker

I am sure most of you haven't done your taxes yet

If this is so important for you feel free to pay more than you owe.

...

Crickets

[Change?]

moron,
you should really read the legislation before you comment. You look a bit foolish in your statements.

or better yet, don't read the bills and you may be qualified to be a democrat in congress.

[Tom Paine]

Once you drink that libertarian Kool-Aide, you are addicted to both reason and reality!

[looking ahead]

pour me a glass

[The Bulletproof Monk]

"fiscally illiterate"
That's rich...coming from a democrat. I've never actually seen a fiscally literate democrat. They, like some folks who think that meat is actually manufactured in the back of the grocery store...have no idea where the mountain of money they want actually comes from.
Some of them are so intense in their devotion--they must actually believe that we grow it on trees. That it's somehow "renewable".
Instead of engaging Americans on a class jealousy venture...you people had better fix a solid set of rules to the playing field (no more moving the goal posts every down) and allow the businesses of this country to establish the risk of the next play. Otherwise, those businesses (capital holders) will be unable to calculate the risk/reward ratios, and they fold their money up and stop investing anything. It's called a capital strike. Because those with the money do exactly that. They go on Strike.

Wanna see 17% unemployment? It could happen again with the kind of manipulation that these bumbling idiots are placing on the free market.

Even if the rules of the game are "stacked", the really gifted investors can overcome and make money. But changing the rules on every play makes them grow weary of the ineptness...and they will stop.
it happened under FDR. It continued under every President since him. And it painfully flared up again under Carter. And it's happening again under Obama.