Jackson Free Press

Gov. Haley Barbour took advantage of his more powerful position in state budget negotiations on Monday by rejecting a tentative budget agreement forged less than 24 hours earlier.

News of the short-lived deal came late Sunday, when House Speaker Billy McCoy announced a breakthrough on a roughly $5 billion budget for the 2010 fiscal year, which begins July 1. The agreement included a $60 million assessment on Mississippi hospitals, which would fund a Medicaid shortfall. It also would have prevented the governor from cutting Medicaid funding without legislative approval, however, a provision that Barbour assailed as "a huge, fundamental flaw."

"If Medicaid is given a blank check for spending, that is a ticking time bomb for Mississippi taxpayers," Barbour said during a conference call with reporters on Tuesday. "That's why I cannot accept this."

With the regular legislative session over, legislators need Barbour to call a special session before they can pass a budget bill.

State law requires the governor to balance budget deficits with program cuts, Barbour said. He blamed the Mississippi Hospital Association, which advocates for the state's 105 public and private hospitals, for exerting a wide influence over House Democrats.

"The House has compromised on some things; the Senate's compromised on some things," Barbour said. "But now the House is insisting on something that cannot be compromised. I'm not calling a special session because we're not ready. We haven't reached an agreement."

Sen. Hob Bryan, D-Amory, who hashed out the Medicaid details with Rep. Dirk Dedeaux, D-Perkinston, explained that the state's hospitals wanted some insurance against future rapacious Medicaid-slashing by Barbour.

"The hospitals have been concerned that the governor would … first of all take their assessment and then turn around and lower their (reimbursement) rates as well," Bryan said.

Chief among the House's concessions was the $60 million hospital assessment. House negotiators had originally called for a lower tax of $45 million, while Senate negotiators initially sided with Barbour in demanding a $90 million assessment. The Mississippi Hospital Association and some House Democrats had previously attacked any hospital tax, the burden of which would ultimately fall on patients, they claimed.

"Hospitals, just like any other businesses, have to pass on their costs to the end users of the product, which are the sick people that lie in the hospital beds," said Mike Bailey, MHA's chief financial officer.

The two chambers also reached a rough compromise to allow a pilot program on managed care—a pet project of the governor's—to continue with some restrictions.

"I think that's a major concession," Bryan noted.

Barbour's refusal to yield on his authority over the Medicaid budget could mean trouble for state agencies. Without a state budget in place by July 1, state agencies will have no authority to spend new money. Employees could go unpaid and state services could halt. Even after both chambers pass a budget bill, it will take 5 days for the legislation to take effect. But Barbour dismissed concerns of a budget-less state on Tuesday, noting that he could grant state agencies funds by executive order.

"This has happened in other states, and what they've done is they've run critical services under a state of emergency," Barbour said. "I am very comfortable that this is not going to be required. But if I'm wrong, then the governor can, by his executive authority, make sure that critical services—like law enforcement, like mental health, like Medicaid—would move forward."

Previous Commentsshow

There was a post on the hattiesburg american that I would like to share with you. by pontif: "The hospitals went over 15 years without the assessment and kept the money to themselves ---- meanwhile charging $30 for a tylenol. The 10 most profitable hospitals in Mississippi (all "nonprofits") make 5X as much as would be required to keep ALL Mississippi hospitals in the black. Someone should write a story on Mississippi's nonprofits....and include the Hospital Association, where Sam Cameron makes over $500,000 a year. The HA is the primary lobby group for the MS House. Demanding (and getting) everything they want. McCoy and the House are their puppets. The Governor and Medicaid should be applauded for having the testicular fortitude to stand up to the hospitals. MS taxpayers are better for it. McCoy needs to go. Shoulda been gone years ago" Alot of truth in those words. The MHA and House is something serious. In reality you're hurting Mississippians. Not sure how you are relating this to Barbour trying to "create problems" for the President. Not every political move is based off of race. (and by the way, if you familiar yourself with the President's healthcare plan... you would understand he is creating his OWN problems... many democrats and republicans alike are highly against it)

jacksonian

Jun 25 2009

The issue here is that Barbour is willing to literally end Medicaid if he can. I don't understand why so called "fiscal conservatives" have such a big issue with Medicaid. When you tax hospitals for a state assessment for a federal aid program, you are basically saying that you do not care for the poor people in your state. Considering the levels of poverty in the Delta and really all around the state, this "fiscally responsible" stance by Barbour reeks of racism and classism. Complaints about non-profit hospitals making profits do not make up for the fact that taxing the smaller hospitals will certainly put more poor and minority people in less of a position to receive access to adequate health care. I wonder how many other states tax the hospitals for the state assessment for Medicaid. Do we tax school districts for free lunch programs? Barbour has to balance the budget, and he can cut some Medicaid funding, but he doesn’t half to, which I think he is implying, in order to balance the budget. Why doesn’t he leave Medicaid alone and cut his managed care program?

Renaldo Bryant

Jun 26 2009

"Complaints about non-profit hospitals making profits do not make up for the fact that taxing the smaller hospitals will certainly put more poor and minority people in less of a position to receive access to adequate health care." Do you honestly think this is a purely racial move? Do you honestly believe this is to hurt minorities? The hospitals (all of them, not simply the ones in the delta) make billions of dollars off of the federal government and off of Mississippians (the ones who actually PAY for services). The only reason they were not assessed the 90million, which was originally agreed to, is due to spending tens of thousands of dollars for McCoy in campaign contributions(which led to legislature being passed). These non-for-profits sit on billions of dollars that are supposed to be used for Mississippians. Having an assessment of 90m, instead of 60m with an opt clause that prevents any assessments at all, will help with budget expense and will help ALL Mississippians. ALL.

jacksonian

Jun 26 2009

Baquan, Because of the disproportionate distribution of wealth and poverty along racial lines in general, and even more so in MS, you can hardly find something that is classist and not racist. MS has a long history of smiting poor whites just to maintain racist social structures. For example, look at the whole desegregation of schools battle in the 20th century. A group of businessmen in the MS Economic Council actually had to stop the legislature from ending public schooling for all in the 1960’s rather than desegregate them. This is why it is important for all poor people to think critically about their plight. Too many poor whites support Barbour, to their detriment, simply because he plays on subtle, yet institutionalized racism in order to maintain the power structure for the "Good Ol' Boys", which only exploits poor whites for their support in elections, while never really doing anything to actually help them economically or socially. You can hear it on all of the conservative talk shows here. Poor whites applauding Barbour for attacking Medicaid. "Something is indeed wrong with Kansas" to quote the title of a book on the phenomenon of poor whites voting for conservative policies that are against their own interests.

Renaldo Bryant

Jun 26 2009

Jacksonian, I didn't say this was a "purely racial move". What I said was this would hurt poor and minorities. This is the institutionalized racism that never gets checked. It is not born out or racial hatred like Jim Crow racism, but born out of zero sum gain politics and public policy born strictly out of ideology, not practicality. Saving $90 mil a year by taxing hospitals for the State’s obligation for federal Medicaid dollars is a poor excuse to deny even one person the healthcare they need. Sure enough, when the hospital gets taxed, the people receiving care get taxed, and this really hurts the working poor who make up the majority of the poor and may not qualify for Medicaid. If it costs more to get care, it deters people from seeking care, and thus they don't receive the care they need. This disproportionately affects poor and minority people, who, due to disproportionate poverty, have to make choices that would put their health in danger considering their financial resources. And, Barbour only does this to keep from raising taxes on people who could better afford to absorb this burden (the capitalist class) more than the ones he’s passing the burden onto now, the poor, working and middle class people. While a balanced budget sounds good politically, I would rather have an imbalanced budget and a healthy citizenry. No life is worth a balanced budget. But, we don’t have to play that zero-sum gain politics. Barbour can balance the budget and sure up Medicaid, he just prefers not to, in order to punish poor people for being poor, which is more politically palpable to his conservative, “Good ol’ boy” constituency. Don’t be fooled, that whole “culture of dependency” rhetoric that conservatives like to throw around to support their stance against government aid for the poor is merely a cover up for the demonization of poor and minority people that is evidenced throughout their thinking. The only principle they adhere to is the one of self preservation. They think just like Tupac, “I gotta get mine, you gotta get yours”.

Renaldo Bryant

Jun 26 2009

LOL... Logically? Yea, it makes all kinds of logical sense to raise taxes on the people who are actually still producing as our economy crumbles and borrow more money as our revenue declines. Those crazy fiscal conservatives with their wacky ideas about spending within our means to pay. What are they thinking? They must be racist because they won't give us everything we demand! Who cares where the money comes from as long as we, as individuals, don't have to pay.

WMartin

Jun 26 2009

Interesting. Well Tupac Shakur also said “Is it a crime, to fight, for what is mine?” also... "The only thing that comes to a sleeping man is dreams" I'll let you figure out how those apply to this article.

jacksonian

Jun 26 2009

Wmartin, Please with the trite "producer class", "trickle down" arguments. They crumble under just the slightest analysis (if this thinking works, why then is the gap between the rich and the poor ever expanding?) In reality, the capitalist class couldn’t produce anything except to exploit working class people. It makes a whole lot more sense to tax the people who can most afford to shoulder the burden, than to allow the most vulnerable to suffer and the middle class to be squeezed simply because they don't have the lobbying power and social networks of the so called "producer class". Heck, Barbour is a lobbyist by trade, which means he represents the link between corporate America (capitalist class) and our so called "democratic" government, which makes our government responsive mainly to the rich few rather than the struggling masses. Prime example is Barbour’s diversion of Katrina funds to fund an expansion of the Port of Gulfport. Who will benefit from that, the displaced working and middle class residents of Gulfport or the business elite?

Renaldo Bryant

Jun 26 2009

Holy Cow... I agree with WMartin for once. I think Hades just froze over. [quote]Barbour can balance the budget and sure up Medicaid[/quote] Okay, Blackwatch, give me your plan. How do you plan on filling in the gap? Remember, the budget must be balanced, as States are not allowed to run a deficit. It's a tougher job than Obama sure has.

Ironghost

Jun 26 2009

Ironghost, The original compromise by the House and Senate presented the Gov. with a balanced budget and protected Medicaid. The Gov. just wants to cut it rather than look at other places to cut to balance the budget. He is not required by law to cut Medicaid to balance the budget, now or even in the future. He can, but he doesn’t have to (like he implies). His decision is purely an ideological one (so that he can come off as friendly to business elites and other so called “fiscal conservatives”) and highly irresponsible.

Renaldo Bryant

Jun 26 2009

If the house and senate want, they can override the veto he'd give a budget then. Or, they can just sit him out and see who gets yelled at more when the state shuts down. I don't, however, buy the liberal argument that Barbour is doing this for some arcane reason such as "he's racist/classist/primo-business worshipper/ect...". I simply haven't seen any evidence. If it is the case he's a secret klansman or libertarian, no one's shown it.

Ironghost

Jun 26 2009

Ironghost, The evidence is in the actions themselves and who benefits from them. Why divert Katrina funds for housing and leave poor families without safe housing in order to support a port that will more enrich business elites? Why tax hospitals for indigent care in order to say that you haven't "raised taxes" for those "that produce"? Who benefits from these actions? The poor and minorities sure don't. Like I said before, institutional racism isn't about raw, Jim Crow racial hatred, it is about how social structures and power relations are maintained in the 21st century, and that is through zero-sum gain politics and ideology driven public policies. Whether or not Barbour is a Klansman has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Honestly, I don't care how he personally feels about anyone. I just ask that the governor of the state to which I pay taxes govern with the broadest scope of people in mind, not powerful few. Barbour has shown time and time again who he governs for, and it ain’t the majority of people of the State.

Renaldo Bryant

Jun 26 2009

Conservatives just have a difference of philosophy on issues that I do not agree with and can not subscribe to. Also, a lot of what they seem to believe is just factually inaccurate. If you want to break things down into liberal and conservative, a good number of conservative states like Mississippi live on the bottom. Also, states that get more in tax dollars back to their states compared to what they send are dominated by "red" states. So, whenever a conservative is involved with a social program like Medicaid, I take the assumption that they are trying to sabotage it in some way or another. If Barbour and others take time to acknowledge groups like the CCC, I have to take note of that and view things that they do with that perspective. One can't be a speaker at a cock-fight and be taken seriously as someone that cares about the ethical treatment of animals. Some actions are just completely incompatible.

Goldenae

Jun 26 2009

Blackwatch: If we're going to criticize Barbour, his single-minded focus can be a valid place to start. He's been focused on following party ideology to the exclusion of real-world deal making and compromise. One thing I would love to see him do is outline why, exactly, medicaid needs cuts. If you're worried about it's growth, then make limits to it elsewhere. I feel most of his current spat with the legislators is about control, really.

Ironghost

Jun 26 2009

Ironghost says: "One thing I would love to see him do is outline why, exactly, medicaid needs cuts." If you can get him to actually honestly admit why he feels Medicaid needs cuts, you need to be a used car salesman or a lawyer because your persuasive abilities are keen. The most we can do as outsiders is to look at his policies and see who benefits. Then we can deduce why he does the things he does. It seems that to him, Medicaid needs cuts because it is an inefficient program, simply because the people who benefit from it are not “producers”. Cutting it would motivate them to get their own insurance, or just die (like many people would do without Medicaid). Time and time again, Barbour has come down on the side of business elites in the name of "economic development" for MS. Yet, MS continues to remain at the bottom of most socio-economic indicators of quality of life. Why is this, because the policies that are championed by Barbour benefit the wealthy few primarily, and not the huddled masses in MS. If you want to spend time trying to get him to admit his motives, more power to you. I say, just get the man out of office and work on educating the populace about the types of policies and politics that would actually benefit them, divorced from ideology.

Renaldo Bryant

Jun 26 2009

Blackwatch, Well, since you said please. Your argument is the one logically flawed Sir. Just because you state my argument crumbles under analysis doesn't make it so. You would actually have to analyze it to find out if it would. Which you didn't, you just rambled off into the bushes of your progressive buzzword laden wilderness...Blah blah lobbyist.... blah blah gap between rich and poor... blah blah trickle down. Yawn... The "capitalist class" as you call them, I like to call them producers, are the only ones producing anything besides more children and a whole lot of hot air. It's hackneyed thinking like yours that believes that wealth is only ever inherited or doled out by your Uncle Sam and if we want more benefits we can just raise taxes. It's ridiculous. I know you are stuck in your Mississippi "the white man is keeping me down" mind set but there is a whole country of people out there who make their own way in the world. Without special help either from the gubmint or a lobbyist or the money that Great Grand Dad made as he was exploiting slaves. I know, it's shocking but it's true I tell ya. I know Barbour was a lobbyist. Who that has read two pages here doesn't know? It's terrible he used his skills and connections to actually make money? So what? I can't imagine who might benefit from an improved industrial and port complex. Maybe the workers who will find jobs there? The community from the expanded tax base? The State from increased commerce? And yea the people who invest capital in the venture might see returns too? Oh my god how evil! You know, maybe it's time to divorce your ideology from what benefits your own special interest group to what benefits us all? People who run businesses here are not evil and they are not out to get you. They are already taxed heavily and during these times a lot of them are struggling. Revenues are down and people are nervous, for you then to talk about more taxes on "those the most able to pay" and then call me trite when I call you out on your regurgitation of the same old crap we have been hearing for years is the epitome of ignorance about who actually does create jobs and produce wealth in this society.

WMartin

Jun 26 2009

Wmartin, I see you have a typical conservative view of the issues, which is more wishful thinking than a solid understanding of what happens in the real world. For all of you supposed "analysis", you list no facts or figures, only ideological talking points. You never addressed a cold reality of the trickle down theory, why do the rich keep getting richer and the gap between rich and poor keeps getting wider and wider? The wealth gap increased under Bush, according to the Congressional Budget Office (http://www.businessweek.com/@@*7OQP4YQG8gsPxgA/magazine/content/04_44/b3906038_mz007.htm)primarily due to tax cuts for the rich. While you champion the notion that an expanded port will be good for "workers", I wonder what will benefit those workers more, another low skilled port job, or a place to live. For all of the talk of Barbour’s economic development in MS, the state still lags behind in employment, income, wealth, healthcare, and a host of other indicators. Google the GI Bill, it represents the widest class expansion and democratic economic opportunity distribution this country has ever known. Thousands of other wise working class or poor enlisted men had unprecedented access to home ownership and education. This in turn created a middle and professional class that more than tripled in size prior to the implementation of the GI Bill. Is this a market based occurrence, a trickle down effect? No. It is a direct action by the government to the people which it is charged to protect and serve. Imagine what could happen today if more people had access to quality education (post secondary) and home ownership? Wouldn’t that create a more expanded professional class than a tax cut for a manufacturing plant that would employ workers for the next 5 to 10 years tops? Most conservatives want tax cuts for the wealthy, under the false premise that they “produce” jobs and income for everyone else. I say this premise is false not because a corporation like Nissan doesn’t employ people, but because this isn’t exactly a true expansion of the economy in these regions. Manufacturing jobs are becoming more and more obsolete. Nissan is not just giving jobs away, they employ people because they make money off of them. While it is true the workers do earn income, is that income just, considering the value of the labor, or even justly comparable to the CEO and leadership salaries? How much of the income can be converted into actual wealth and sustainability for the workers? How rich do the rich have to get before the working class and poor can earn enough to be self sustainable? Why is it that the best way (according to conservatives) to economically empower the poor and middle class is to make more exploitable labor for the rich? That isn’t what happened in the case of the GI Bill, so why is it the answer now? WMartin, your “analysis” simply fails under the weight of historic and economic real world analysis. Those talking points only make sense to the wealthy corporate elites and conservative ideologues. Any arguments that counter those claims are swiftly dismissed by conservatives as “inefficient” and “socialist” simply because they call for the government to respond more to the needs of a wider swath of citizens, something that the corporate elites and the wealthy are just not accustomed to. To put it plainly, the trickle down theory assumes that if one sees a drowning person, rather than throw him a life raft, give the company that makes life rafts a tax break so that they would employ more people (which is not a given) so that there would be more life rafts so that the ship in which drowning man fell off of would have more life rafts to spare. There is no guarantee that the drowning man would ever get the help he needs, only that the raft company would make more money. Why stop the government for acting on behalf of the masses in order to enrich the relative few? Blackwatch!!!!!!

Renaldo Bryant

Jun 29 2009

Socialist arguments sound so nice until you ask how they're going to pay for it all.

Ironghost

Jun 29 2009

"To put it plainly, the trickle down theory assumes that if one sees a drowning person, rather than throw him a life raft, give the company that makes life rafts a tax break so that they would employ more people (which is not a given) so that there would be more life rafts so that the ship in which drowning man fell off of would have more life rafts to spare. There is no guarantee that the drowning man would ever get the help he needs, only that the raft company would make more money." Okay..? We've found the root of the problem. People make mistakes and must deal with the consequences. A man who can't swim better stay away from the rail of the ship. You don't even think to question how he got overboard; your mind automatically places blame on the big bad ship. Another bailout mentality. You keep throwing the life rafts out there... I'll start teaching people how to swim on their own.

jacksonian

Jun 29 2009

Ironghost, Define "Socialist"? What about my ideas are "socialist"? Was the GI Bill "socialist"?

Renaldo Bryant

Jun 29 2009

Come on... you can't wedge the GI Bill into the definition of Socialism. The GI Bill is a benefit that had good results. But then the only people eligible for the GI bill are, get this, Veterans! Serve your country for a certain amount of time and otherwise qualify, and you're eligible. Socialism is what's happening now. Government ownership of GM. Obama advocating controlling banks and other financial instutions. Government owning the means of production is the definition of socialism. Another favorite of mine is the "Tax Cuts for the Wealthy". Liberals have had this irrational hatred of Capital Gains tax cuts for years, yet everyone who sells a house for profit is hit with Capital Gains tax. (Which, btw, are going up if Obama has his way.)

Ironghost

Jun 29 2009

Jacksonian, Here’s the root of the problem in your quote here "People make mistakes and must deal with the consequences. A man who can't swim better stay away from the rail of the ship." It is your immediate assumption that the drowning man can't swim, or is drowning because of something he did. Who’s to say that the man needs to learn how to swim? Why couldn’t he have been swimming for too long, treading water, and now needs relief in order to survive? This thinking reveals and underlying philosophical difference between so called “fiscal conservatives” and liberal democratic ideas. You assume that poverty is mainly the result of individual moral, personal or intellectual failure. If this assumption is true, then we would also have to assume that the converse would be true, that wealth is the mainly the result of individual moral, personal or intellectual success. As we have seen time and time again, (Bernie Madoff, Worldcom, Enron, heck George W. Bush) this definitely isn't the case. So how can we logically deduce the former and hold it as a sound premise for public policy? The GI bill also, is a prime example of the systemic origins of the disproportionate poverty and inequality we see today along racial and gender lines. While it did boast more working class and poor into the realms of the professional class than ever before, it was also limited in its application. Mainly only white men (and their progeny) benefitted from it. Considering the generational origins of much of today’s wealth and poverty, we can see how this can create systemic contexts under which many poor and minority people must live. To then assert that their lot in life is mainly the result of personal moral or intellectual failings is slightly veiled race and class prejudice. Many times, truly democratic government (by the people, of the people, for the people, not "corporate elites") is the only hope these people have in the fight to maintain a decent standard of living. Time and time again this hope is dashed by conservative ideologues posing as sound public policy leaders who do what is politically expedient rather than what is right. Blackwatch!!!!!!

Renaldo Bryant

Jun 29 2009

Well, the US Military is a socialist organization, which is fine. We live in a mixed economy, so to dismiss a "scary word" like socialism is immature. Actually, the US Military is one of the only true socialist programs in existence. Blackwatch, the definition of socialism is much needed when discussing the topic. State-socialism, Anti-state socialism, Libertarian Socialism, etc.

JonOKeefe

Jun 29 2009

Baquan, Great minds think alike!!!LOL!! Ironghost, Didn't GM actually ask the government to bail them out? Didn’t they fly corporate jets to the capital and ask for Billions of dollars, basically putting GM up for sale? So, If GM willingly sold itself to the government, how is that a sign of Socialism? GM made a “free market choice” to ask the government to take them over. I never said that the GI bill was socialist; you’re the one asserting that any government intervention in the free market is socialist. And as Baquan noted, you should be thanking God that the government regulates your precious "free market" (which ain't really free when 1% of the population owns over 40% of it). The last time I read the constitution, it mentioned nothing of not allowing governments to regulate economic markets, especially when it help to ensure basic rights of citizens, you know, rights to life and liberty? What form of government do you think we have anyway, a radical democracy or a free market protectorate? Blackwatch!!!!!!

Renaldo Bryant

Jun 29 2009

Blackwatch, my understanding of how the real world works is grounded in running small businesses and creating real jobs. Of making my way on my own in the real world. Without a college degree or any help from my Uncle Sam. I see first hand the effects of taxing those you call "those who could better afford to pay". I have to make the decisions to lay off people or hire people. So I am intimately familiar with how the world works. It's not a fair, peaceful or benevolent world. Your example of supply side economics is all wet, pun intended. It's funny you talk about the real world but give some kind of fantastic parable to explain a complex economic theory. Only a liberal would think of taxes to try to save someone from drowning. LOL. Let me see if I can 'splain it better. Say instead of someone drowning, there is a company that digs ditches. Ya know, real world stuff. So they use some of their capital from a tax cut or tax break or just some they managed to keep after paying their taxes and make a capital investment in automated ditch digging equipment. The workers digging the ditches by hand are all of the sudden much more productive using the new equipment. So what has happened? The company who makes the machinery makes money, our ditch digging company is more efficient and profitable and who do you think earns a higher wage? An unskilled laborer or an equipment operator? Everyone knows its the equipment operator who makes more money in wages than a guy with a shovel. That's a real world example of an investment "trickling down" (I don't particularly like the term) to the average worker. You are correct, however, my ideas are mostly wishful thinking. I wish that people would educate themselves with the opportunities they are given. I wish that people would understand that nothing is owed to them simply because they continue to draw breath in the United States. No one is owed health care paid for by me. No one is owed a college education paid for by another. I don't owe anyone the fruits of my labor because I was fortunate enough to be born in the U.S.A. That is slavery and we decided we didn't like that. Remember? I wish people would realize that we decided as a country to provide those things because it was in our best interests to do so. I wish they would be grateful and look at educating themselves as a duty like our President stated and not something they were entitled to squander. I also wish they would realize that we can't continue to pay for every whim that they want. There is simply not enough money. We have a GDP of about $14 trillion dollars and our debt is fast approaching that number, at what point do we stop? At what point will we say enough is enough? The so called "conservatives" did a great job of following the democrats down the road to insolvency. The republicans spent worse than democrats and cut taxes in time of war and let the foxes guard the financial hen house. It's inexcusable and unforgivable for those who had their hands in it. And what's the great idea of how to fix all that? Well, we will just raise taxes and spend at a rate we have never seen before. Awesome idea! Like I stated earlier... revenues are down. Sales are down. Unemployment is up and foreclosures are up. Credit defaults continue to be a problem and you want to raise taxes? Wow, where did you get your economics degree? The same school that gave a license to Dr. Zarr and his funk monster?

WMartin

Jun 29 2009

...continued from above. I don't have any problem with some basic regulation as I have stated on these pages before. There have to be referees and judges to make sure all is fair. And certainly capitalism run amok is no panacea. But the socialist idea of from each according to his ability to each according to their needs is a dismal failure everywhere it's been tried. The producers simply can't keep up with the needy. So, something in the middle is needed. This is simply the wrong time to be raising anyone's taxes and trying to provide a whole plethora of new social programs. This economic crisis is not over, I think it's going to get worse actually, and I believe a rush to get all you can get now is only going to make things much, much worse.

WMartin

Jun 29 2009

WMartin, Why is it fantastic of me to assume that government is here to help the very people who empower it, the masses? Your understanding of economics needs improving if you don't think that gov't spending can help in times of economic downturn (google Keynesian economics). Heck, there are many economists who cite that if there were more government programs enacted earlier on during the 1930's, perhaps the economy would not have fallen into the Great Depression. It is also interesting to note that your understanding of complex macro-economic phenomena comes from running a small business. Again, while I have asked the question several times about the widening wealth gaps, you continue to ignore the issue. I assume you ignore it because you agree that the poor just don't have what it takes to succeed in a market economy, nothing more , nothing less. That seems to be an adequate analysis of such a complex social phenomenon and economic inequality along racial and gender lines (sarcasm alert). Blackwatch!!!!!!

Renaldo Bryant

Jun 29 2009

Baquan, I have never advocating ripping anyone off. True laissez-faire capitalists know that tax favors and special advantages for business is not part of the free market any more than over the top regulation or spiteful draconian taxation. Let them be doesn't translate to help them out. It's not one or the other. You are being too binary as some around these parts like to say. The whole taxing of the super rich is a nice argument, it's very emotional and resonates well with the populous. Hell, I don't really have a problem raising the top rates for people making over $30 million, the only problem is there aren't enough of them. As a viable economic solution to what ails us, it's pi$$ing in the wind. What really happens is the net isn't set at $3o Million it is set to catch people who make much much less. The people who would have invested their private capital back into credit markets are the ones who get caught in that net. If they pay more in taxes then they have less to invest and not much incentive to make any more than that.

WMartin

Jun 29 2009

Blackwatch, ask the people in New Orleans how effective the government is in saving people who are drowning. I'm sure they can lay some real world on ya. I also assume that government is there to protect our rights, but I wont be sitting on my rooftop waiting for the big bailout either. Oh yea! A huge investment into medical insurance and failing finacial institutions and automobile companies is what saved us from the great depression and the Nazi's. (Do we really need a sarcasm alert for that statement?) I always ignore meaningless left wingnut talking points. It's nothing personal. It is also interesting to note that your understanding of complex macro-economic phenomena comes from running a small business. I didn't say that it did, I wonder if you are mis-characterizing my posts because you are intellectually or morally bankrupt. Which is it?

WMartin

Jun 29 2009

Martin: Your accessment of things are quite interesting. I only read the last post, so I am basing my comments on it. You have an opinion on the economy, but that does not mean that it is sound. During the Great Depression when some social programs and government spending, about one quarter of the nation's population was in poverty. Without question, the government helped ease that situation. As for financial institutions, the automobile companies, etc., they failed on their own because of their own practices. You may not agree with the government helping, but if the government had not done anything, the automobile companies would have completely failed and same for the housing market and the financial institutions. You are trying to portray the situation as these entities were strong and the government came in and destroyed them. Bush just kicked those cans down the road for someone else to deal with. The wheels were coming off before Obama took office. I can guarantee you almost without exception that whenever government gets involved in a situation, it is after private industry has shown a lack of interest or an unwillingness to conduct itself properly. The US car companies were not building cars people wanted to buy, but foreign companies were. The successes they did have were overshadowed by the large fleet of cars nobody wanted. Nobody forced the housing industry to bundle up overvalued mortgages and trade them. The financial industry was destroyed by the practice of leverage. None of that was the government's fault. You mentioned New Orleans as an example of government failure. It was a failure of the people in charge. Mississippi which was better prepared, handled the same disaster better. But what a lot of arrogant conservatives fail to observe about New Orleans is the nature of such a disaster. When a city is destroyed, that exceeds the capabilities of that city or that state to adequately respond to the disaster. Katrina was a national natural disaster and the federal government on a national level was too slow to respond. When the proper leadership, involving the Reserve General that took over, things got done. It is very arrogant of people to think that people sit around think the government can save them when they can save themselves. Let the same disaster happen now when economic times are worse and you would see more individuals that would not be able to move their families out or have other friends and families to live with. Today, more people understand how financies can limit a families response to an annouced alert. It is a very elite way of thinking to assume that people did not do what they could because they assumed the government would save them. People of all races and political affiliation have been victims of natural disasters. I am a business owner as well and I challenge you to tell us an example of private industry self-regulating itself without government regulations in a totally ethical way. You will never find it because it only take one "Madoff" to ruin the lives of thousands of people and ruin untold numbers of businesses. Conservatives readily point out government program failures, which generally have pretty high standards, but totally ignore the number of private industry failures that happen far more often.

Goldenae

Jun 29 2009

Goldenae, One word. scroll.

WMartin

Jun 29 2009

WMartin: Your response lacks substance. You must not be comfortable with the positions you put out there.

Goldenae

Jun 29 2009

Why would I respond to your comments when you have no idea what you are commenting on? It's like someone hearing the last sentence of a conversation and forming their opinion of the whole discussion. I could refute almost everything you said by saying; I didn't say that, I didn't say anything like that or you have no idea what you are talking about. So, pick your favorite. My response to scroll up and read the discussion or at least my posts was so that YOU would be able to respond with substance or at least comment on something we were talking about.

WMartin

Jun 29 2009

...meanwhile, it looks like we might have an actual deal on Medicaid soon. Long winded Economic Theory discussion aside.

Ironghost

Jun 29 2009

Goldenae- this is totally off topic, but I still can't understand people saying the U.S. car industry didn't build cars people wanted. Nothing outsold Ford or Chevy trucks and SUVs(for 25+years) until gas prices went up last summer, people were buying them like crazy. Seems like that's building what people wanted. They can't design and build a car overnight, they tried that in the '70s during the first gas crisis and look what wonderful cars they produced, the Pinto,Vega,KCars,etc total pieces of automotive crap. That's what gave the Japanese automakers their larger share of the U.S. market place to start with. Labor, insurance,manufactoring and union cost had more to do with their problems than what cars and trucks they built. Now back to regular scheduled agruing. :)

BubbaT

Jun 29 2009

We love bringing up the Great Depression when talking about government programs. The New Deal was amazing. Let's omit the fact that WWII was the primary reason manufacturing jobs/ services etc. were created and the unemployment rate dropped significantly. War-time production, the draft, etc... tell me how these are irrelevant. the New Deal was a quick fix; the beginning to a continuous cycle of spending and government dependency... In reality the Great Depression ended because of a world war... I'm not certain how you can talk about the depression without mentioning the war. (unless, of course, you wish to identify the new deal as a success in order to advocate government spending)

jacksonian

Jun 30 2009

Good point BubbaT, The automakers have been financially unstable for years because of the tiny profit margin of their business model. They relied on a culture of consumption and a constant stream of consumer credit to keep their sales at the point where they didn't lose bucket loads of money on their staggering overhead. It's mind boggling that people think the government can or will save us all from ourselves.

WMartin

Jun 30 2009

WMartin, you have a interesting take on the Depression only a conservative would love. Hoover's "do nothing" policies were to blame, in large part, for how bad the Great Depression eventually got. Most historians agree that government action earlier could have made the results less devastating for the U.S. and the world. Roosevelt's actions began to relieve both the unemployment and the incredible hopelessness of the country, and some of those programs, like Social Security, are still in place today. In Europe, despots like Hitler and Mussolini came to power because of the worldwide depression, not because of Roosevelt's attempts to alleviate it. Ultimately, it was the full "employment" and increased government spending to fund WWII that pulled the country out of the depression, you're right. But most historians agree that without the government's programs leading up to the war, the U.S. response to WWII might never had happened, or might have been severely limited. Hopefully, that's not the route we want to take today. But let's not forget that the spending to build armaments and outfit the military came from the government as well. Who do you think bought all the goods American produced during the war years?

Ronni_Mott

Jun 30 2009

On a different subject than the depression, I'm weary of people who criticize only for the sake of criticism, as some are doing on this thread. Jacksonian and WMartin, since y'all seem to be so buddy-buddy on the issues lately, are you advocating that the government doesn't have any obligation to help anyone in need? To the contrary, in this country, we supposedly have a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." I don't know what that means to you, but to me, it means that that government consists of citizens (of), elected by citizens (by) to do the will of the citizens (for) and act in their best interests. The government is our primary vehicle for ensuring we all have access to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," which must include ensuring that the least of us is cared for. Just because the government did a crappy job in New Orleans doesn't mean that we should relieve the government of its duty to care for those people who cannot care for themselves. It does mean that we, the people, have to demand that our government does better. There are 14.5 million unemployed people in the U.S. and all you've come up with so far is sticking pins into the actions taken. You are demonstrating an extremely one-sided, pessimistic and antagonistic attitude. I invite you to do better as well.

Ronni_Mott

Jun 30 2009

I'm weary of people who criticize only for the sake of criticism, as some are doing on this thread. It's a boy thing. (ducks) Seriously, it's remarkable how most people want the government to help them or their businesses, but not other people. I was thinking about spending on crime last night: The same people who do not want the taxpayers to spend money on education and other services for the poor that will help reduce crime do not mind turning around and spending it on police officers and prisons. It's as if they don't want the money to go to *help* people in any way, just imprison them later. It's the ultimate hypocrisy, and such a tragedy.

DonnaLadd

Jun 30 2009

"are you advocating that the government doesn't have any obligation to help anyone in need? To the contrary, in this country, we supposedly have a government "of the people, by the people, for the people." I don't know what that means to you, but to me, it means that that government consists of citizens (of), elected by citizens (by) to do the will of the citizens (for) and act in their best interests." In regard to your first question, I suppose it depends on the definition of "need". I suppose our disagreement also lies in the final part of the quote above... "act in their best interests". I personally believe in decision making, in the consequence of those decisions,and in minimal government influence along the way. It's as simple as that. Many of you disagree, but that's the beauty of our country. The government isn't necessarily obligated to help those in need. It's obligated to maintain infrastructure, provide national defense and the like, but catering to every need of a country would have negative effects. President Grover Cleveland had an interesting take on the government's obligation to the needy. He vetoed a bill that would appropriate money to distribute seed to drought-stricken farmers; "Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character. . . . " To some that may sound harsh. To me, however, that statement is logical; is it not?

jacksonian

Jun 30 2009

Cleveland's statement is pretty broad, jacksonian, but I can see that you think it makes sense. My take on government aid to the needy is that an impoverished, ignorant populace is a detriment to the welfare of the entire country, and sometimes—if things get too difficult for a big enough part of the populace—even presents a national security risk. To borrow a cliche, we're only as strong as our weakest link. Everyone needs assistance from time to time, and often it is incumbent on a government to help its people. While I'm not advocating just giving handouts to anyone who wants one at any time, we don't do a very good job of providing the means for people to lift themselves up from poverty. That takes a combination of long-term and short-term assistance—everything from decent education and medical care to helping out in emergencies—in combination with the desire to get out of a bad situation. It's a rare person who can do it on their own without some help along the way. I'm not sure I like the alternative, where everyone is left to their own devices for survival. It seems overly harsh, primitive and lacking in basic compassion. I expect Cleveland's decision not to assist drought-stricken Texas farmers in 1887 meant some probably starved to death and others resorted to crime. I suppose a few hearty souls survived and others had the wherewithal to move on. I believe that people have an obligation to care for each other in the same way that people have an obligation to care for the planet. As a government made up of the people, the government must do its part, too.

Ronni_Mott

Jun 30 2009

WMartin, you have a interesting take on the Depression only a conservative would love. I didn't really give my take on the Great Depression I was ridiculing Blackwatch's. The government spending in the Great Depression was focused on creating jobs, infrastructure and fighting a war, not bailing out the financial institutions and speculators that created it. The two government plans are not comparable. Not even to mention the tax burden carried in those days was far smaller. Just any spending is not going to help. That was my only "take" in regard to his comments about the depression. You certainly have a take on the role Government should play in our lives that only a liberal would love. Probably, our only real disagreement is where the line is drawn. I don't believe in cradle to grave assistance. But I do believe the Government is there to help. Budgets are limited so we need to make the most of what we have. We obviously can't afford to fund all the services that we would like to provide, so something has to go under the axe or we need to raise revenues. Maybe you don't believe businesses are struggling now and they can afford to pay much more in taxes. I wish that was true in our case. And the more that economic activity is stifled under increased taxes, high energy prices and just reduced confidence in our system the worse revenues to the state will be.

WMartin

Jun 30 2009

I'm weary of people who criticize only for the sake of criticism. I will assume this is directed at me, if not please pay no attention. The only thing I started out to criticize was the stupid idea to raise taxes on the nebulous "those more able to pay" which invariably means me. I believe I gave valid reasons for the criticism. I never said there should be no government assistance, I haven't called for the dissolution of medicare to solve the funding problem. It's not so binary ;). But to lambaste economic development which would hopefully generate more revenue for the state at the same time as calling for more services and higher taxes is short sighted at best and just plain ignorant at worst.

WMartin

Jun 30 2009

WMartin, You seem to think that only poor people should have to suffer so that the wealthy can maintain a lifestyle (not survive, but maintain a lifestyle).Cutting vital services such as Medicaid so that wealthy businessmen don't have to curb spending seems to me to be more ignorant than actually asking the wealthy to sacrifice some conveniences in order for more poor people to have access to needed health care. In all of your talk of responsible budgeting and cutting expenses, you even have to admit that you and yours won't miss a meal, or medical treatment if your tax rate went up to say 39% from the 36% it already is if you make over 250K. I think the issue of sacrifice for the wealthy is vastly different from the issue of sacrifice for the poor. You talk of your aversion to "cradle to the grave" assistance for the poor, yet, your gov't has a history of cradle to the grave support of conspicuous consumption for business elites, look at things like "regime change" in countries like Angola, Honduras, Iraq, and how corporations benefit from these actions that "protect democracy" abroad. Of course, you are not responsible for the livelihood of this state's poor, but the duly elected gov't should be looking out for the most vulnerable, so as to help create a viable, peaceful community. While a 3% tax hike to a corporation may, to you, not be worth the medical treatment of a few poor people in the delta, others might think it is well within the right of the gov't to do so. I am for true economic development that places more people in position to actually gain independent wealth, not make more people available to business elites to enrich themselves off of. The problem I have with the Barbour version of economic development is that it makes the corporate elite wealthier at a faster rate than the working class and the poor. I say that is not the most efficient way to bring more people into economic self sufficiency. Better access to education, home ownership, and capital for more diverse people enriches the community faster than the “trickle down” version that never really trickles down further than the corporate board room. Your characterization of gov't spending during the depression is a little off. The gov't did actually regulate markets, financial institutions and monetary supply during that time (where do you think the FDIC came from?). Blackwatch!!!!!!

Renaldo Bryant

Jul 1 2009