Today's Article
Lawmakers must
first give a damn
about workers
before they lift a
finger to help them.
first give a damn
about workers
before they lift a
finger to help them.
The American Spark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Why Some Republican Governors Are Refusing Stimulus Bucks
By Cliff Montgomery - Mar. 4th, 2009
Republican state governors such as Bobby Jindal (Louisiana), Rick Perry (Texas) and Haley Barbour
(Mississippi) recently have produced quite a spectacle with their rejection of federal stimulus
dollars--specifically, their refusal to accept hundreds of millions intended to expand unemployment insurance
benefits for their citizens during this economic meltdown.
So why are they doing this? Evidence suggests it's a simple combination of two factors:
1.) The unusual economic position the governors' states currently enjoy;
2.) And the ugly fact that these GOP leaders don't care at all about the problems of their weakest citizens.
First, the bizarre economic position of the governors' states. The "Great Recession" appears to have most
severely hit those states closely tied to mortgage markets, the auto industry, etc. States with less direct ties to
those markets, though still hurting, do not appear to have been affected nearly as much.
The Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on Jan. 27th released its December 2008 report on
regional and state unemployment.
While "the national unemployment rate rose from 6.8 to 7.2 percent in December and was up by 2.3
percentage points from a year earlier," the study also revealed that "the only over-the-month [December 2008]
increases in the level of employment were recorded in Louisiana (+3,700 or +0.2 percent) and the District of
Columbia (+100 or less than +0.1 percent)."
The BLS report further noted that, "over the [last] year, non-farm employment increased in 8 states and the
District of Columbia and decreased in 42 states." One of those 8 lucky states enjoying an increased
employment was Texas, which actually enjoyed an employment increase of 1.5 percent.
"The Northeast and South recorded the lowest unemployment rates, 7.0 percent each," added the BLS study.
So governors of southern states like Louisiana and Mississippi are not experiencing the direct economic and
political pressures most other governors feel to provide extra unemployment aid to huge numbers of laid-off
workers.
But the relatively easier times may soon be over for Jindal, Perry and Barbour.
"All four regions registered statistically significant [unemployment] rate increases from November: the
Northeast (+0.9 percentage point), West (+0.7 point), and Midwest and South (+0.6 point each). All four
regions also reported significant jobless rate increases from December 2007: the West (+2.9 percentage
points), South (+2.5 points), Northeast (+2.4 points), and Midwest (+2.2 points)," the study concluded.
There also is a more underhanded reason for why these Republican governors do not want stimulus funds to
help their own unemployed citizens, even during this time of Great Recession. Recent history shows that
they've never much cared for their poorest citizens to start with.
This truth becomes clear when we investigate how Republicans and other conservative state legislators have
dealt with the minimum wage law. In no way may this law be mis-characterized as a "handout"; it is solely a
basic, minimum compensation for labor.
The minimum wage of course is the lowest pay which workers may receive for one hour of labor. In America,
both the national and individual state governments may establish a minimum wage--but where there is a
difference between these two legal amounts, the higher payment becomes the minimum wage for that state.
The U.S. Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division--a division created "to protect and enhance the welfare
of the nation's workforce"--recently issued a report entitled, Changes In Basic Minimum Wages In Non-Farm
Employment Under State Law: Selected Years 1968 to 2008.
It is a multi-year record revealing how individual states reward its poorest, most powerless workers. It therefore
also serves as an indictment of those state bureaucracies which do little to help their hard-working but
lowest-paid citizens.
The results are telling.
Texas did not even begin to have a state minimum wage standard until 1972; it set the minimum wage at $1.40
an hour, while the federal standard was $1.60.
Over time, the Texas standard eventually fell even farther behind the federal. The federal minimum wage rose
through the 1990s, to $5.15 by 1998. But the Texas standard remained frozen at $3.35 until 2002, when it
finally began keeping pace with the federal minimum.
We perhaps should stop here to point out that the Texas governor throughout much of the 1990s and up to
January 2001 was a Republican neo-conservative by the name of George W. Bush.
But what of Louisiana and Mississippi? Admittedly, they've had no problems keeping their state minimum wage
apace with the federal minimum: They are two of only five states in the Union to have no state minimum wage
standard whatsoever. Only the federal standard ensures a bare minimum wage for workers living in these
states.
Lawmakers must first give a damn about workers before they lift a finger to help them. That's why some
Republican governors are hoping to refuse these much-needed funds. You have to care before you wish to
act.
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of the The American Spark
e-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
By Cliff Montgomery - Mar. 4th, 2009
Republican state governors such as Bobby Jindal (Louisiana), Rick Perry (Texas) and Haley Barbour
(Mississippi) recently have produced quite a spectacle with their rejection of federal stimulus
dollars--specifically, their refusal to accept hundreds of millions intended to expand unemployment insurance
benefits for their citizens during this economic meltdown.
So why are they doing this? Evidence suggests it's a simple combination of two factors:
1.) The unusual economic position the governors' states currently enjoy;
2.) And the ugly fact that these GOP leaders don't care at all about the problems of their weakest citizens.
First, the bizarre economic position of the governors' states. The "Great Recession" appears to have most
severely hit those states closely tied to mortgage markets, the auto industry, etc. States with less direct ties to
those markets, though still hurting, do not appear to have been affected nearly as much.
The Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on Jan. 27th released its December 2008 report on
regional and state unemployment.
While "the national unemployment rate rose from 6.8 to 7.2 percent in December and was up by 2.3
percentage points from a year earlier," the study also revealed that "the only over-the-month [December 2008]
increases in the level of employment were recorded in Louisiana (+3,700 or +0.2 percent) and the District of
Columbia (+100 or less than +0.1 percent)."
The BLS report further noted that, "over the [last] year, non-farm employment increased in 8 states and the
District of Columbia and decreased in 42 states." One of those 8 lucky states enjoying an increased
employment was Texas, which actually enjoyed an employment increase of 1.5 percent.
"The Northeast and South recorded the lowest unemployment rates, 7.0 percent each," added the BLS study.
So governors of southern states like Louisiana and Mississippi are not experiencing the direct economic and
political pressures most other governors feel to provide extra unemployment aid to huge numbers of laid-off
workers.
But the relatively easier times may soon be over for Jindal, Perry and Barbour.
"All four regions registered statistically significant [unemployment] rate increases from November: the
Northeast (+0.9 percentage point), West (+0.7 point), and Midwest and South (+0.6 point each). All four
regions also reported significant jobless rate increases from December 2007: the West (+2.9 percentage
points), South (+2.5 points), Northeast (+2.4 points), and Midwest (+2.2 points)," the study concluded.
There also is a more underhanded reason for why these Republican governors do not want stimulus funds to
help their own unemployed citizens, even during this time of Great Recession. Recent history shows that
they've never much cared for their poorest citizens to start with.
This truth becomes clear when we investigate how Republicans and other conservative state legislators have
dealt with the minimum wage law. In no way may this law be mis-characterized as a "handout"; it is solely a
basic, minimum compensation for labor.
The minimum wage of course is the lowest pay which workers may receive for one hour of labor. In America,
both the national and individual state governments may establish a minimum wage--but where there is a
difference between these two legal amounts, the higher payment becomes the minimum wage for that state.
The U.S. Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division--a division created "to protect and enhance the welfare
of the nation's workforce"--recently issued a report entitled, Changes In Basic Minimum Wages In Non-Farm
Employment Under State Law: Selected Years 1968 to 2008.
It is a multi-year record revealing how individual states reward its poorest, most powerless workers. It therefore
also serves as an indictment of those state bureaucracies which do little to help their hard-working but
lowest-paid citizens.
The results are telling.
Texas did not even begin to have a state minimum wage standard until 1972; it set the minimum wage at $1.40
an hour, while the federal standard was $1.60.
Over time, the Texas standard eventually fell even farther behind the federal. The federal minimum wage rose
through the 1990s, to $5.15 by 1998. But the Texas standard remained frozen at $3.35 until 2002, when it
finally began keeping pace with the federal minimum.
We perhaps should stop here to point out that the Texas governor throughout much of the 1990s and up to
January 2001 was a Republican neo-conservative by the name of George W. Bush.
But what of Louisiana and Mississippi? Admittedly, they've had no problems keeping their state minimum wage
apace with the federal minimum: They are two of only five states in the Union to have no state minimum wage
standard whatsoever. Only the federal standard ensures a bare minimum wage for workers living in these
states.
Lawmakers must first give a damn about workers before they lift a finger to help them. That's why some
Republican governors are hoping to refuse these much-needed funds. You have to care before you wish to
act.
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of the The American Spark
e-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
Wait, why does an
independent news source
run advertisements? The
Spark answers in its
advertising policy.
independent news source
run advertisements? The
Spark answers in its
advertising policy.
* Please check out our ads--they
help keep this news site running.
Thanks!
help keep this news site running.
Thanks!