Jackson Free Press

A resolution passed by the House last month in an attempt to override Gov. Haley Barbour's rejection of $56 million in federal stimulus dollars will likely never get out of the committee for a vote, according to the Sun Herald.

Barbour has been an outspoken opponent of this portion of the funds, which could add $25 a week to the average $200 unemployment benefit check for Mississippians, who receive the lowest benefits in the country. It would also have added people laid off from part-time work, necessitating a change in state law. Many states already provide part-timers with benefits when they lose their jobs through no fault of their own.

The governor has repeatedly said that Mississippi businesses would have to pay additional unemployment taxes after the federal funds run out, and the pro-business Republican has been adamant in his stance so far, despite wide-spread criticism.

The Senate wrote another resolution urging Barbour to accept all of the federal dollars allocated for Mississippi, estimated at $2.5 to $2.8 billion. That resolution is also looking at death by committee, according to Rules Committee Chairman Billy Hewes, R-Gulfport, who said he will not bring the resolutions up for a vote.

"There's not enough support in the committee to bring it out," Hewes told the Sun Herald. "It would materially change the manner in which we handle the unemployment compensation."

Democrats in the state legislature are disappointed with Hewes' decision.

"As I've said before, a person who has lost a wage-earning position through no fault of his or her own ought to fully access the package that Congress passed," House Speaker Billy McCoy, D-Rienzi, said in a statement.

Previous Commentsshow

Just goes to show, republicans hate residents of Mississippi. Its a shame every year the state votes red.

BobbyKearan

Mar 20 2009

Thats it! I'm moving. This is beyond stupid. I give up. There is officially no hope here.

dd39203

Mar 20 2009

DD, I'm in Chicago right now. Maybe I should stay here.

golden eagle

Mar 20 2009

dd, Try not to get too mired in the bad news and the setbacks, there are good things happening. I know you are frustrated and to be perfectly honest I moved away when I got fed up with the small mindedness of Mississippians. Plus just to see how everyone else lived. But I moved back and bought a house in South Jackson when all my friends were moving or had moved out of Jackson. They all said I was nuts. Although I was used to them saying that. And if what they were saying was true, (which thankfully it wasn't) that crime had taken over and Jackson was hopeless, I wasn't going to just cut and run. I grew up here and as much as I complain I do love this place. Sure, Memphis was fun and San Francisco was great and Denver has to be in the top five of greatest places to live ever. But those places didn't get like they are over night. The more good, smart, thoughtful, creative people that leave Jackson and Mississippi the longer it will take those of us left behind to drag everyone else kicking and screaming into the twentieth century. Yes, I know it's the twenty-first. But a journey of a thousand miles, or a hundred or so years, begins with the first step.

WMartin

Mar 20 2009

How long did Democrats run Mississippi? Yeah, Republicans really have had time to ruin it.

Ironghost

Mar 20 2009

Iron, it seems to me you're defending where no one's attacking. No one on this thread has accused Republicans of "ruining" Mississippi. Haley Barbour has repeatedly shown that he prefers to take care of businesses instead of people. Rather than help out his constituents today, he's opposed to taking available funds because of a future tax "burden" on businesses that may or may not ever come about. That's the issue. It would be great to deal with the current crises now instead of using political tarot cards to divine the future.

Ronni_Mott

Mar 23 2009

[quote]Iron, it seems to me you're defending where no one's attacking.[/quote] It's a reflex. The media habitually demonize their opponents rather than think critically. :) As for the rest of it? The states would either have to pick up the bill in two years, or cut services back to current levels. Where's that going to help? The US got into the problem because of debt; going further into debt with China won't help.

Ironghost

Mar 23 2009

The states would either have to pick up the bill in two years, or cut services back to current levels. That assumes, Iron, that everything else will remain the same until then -- with no new jobs created and no new business opening, and the same rate of unemployment. We have got to start thinking outside of the boxes that got us here. First, it's possible to change a lot of circumstances in two years, providing a broader, stronger base from which to pool unemployment benefits, for example, so that individual businesses actually end up paying less because of lower unemployment. Second, it does absolutely NO good to keep the unemployed, whether from full-time or part-time jobs (many of whom are single mothers) destitute. We should use what the federal government is offering to get us away from the lowest rate of benefits in the country, i.e., raise the bar instead of keeping it--like so many other things in Mississippi--sub-standard.

Ronni_Mott

Mar 23 2009

Well... (you know, I didn't mean to start this debate again... oh well!) 1. Two years can change a lot, granted. I'll be stunned if Obama's plans actually work where FDR's didn't, mind you. At least we might have nicer roads and the same unemployment levels after the Accountant/Paver Operators get laid off when the job's done. 2. I see it like this: We take the money the government's borrowing. We pull our state up from the bottom to, say, 45th. We're there two years. Then the job market doesn't boom, China and other nations get tired of floating us loans, and it all collapses again. We'll be back to 50th in no time.

Ironghost

Mar 23 2009