Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Terry Maloney who wrote (381253)	2/26/2009 1:14:51 PM
From: Horgad	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

I have seen parts of it and heard some other stuff from other state govs. I think the bottom line is that some of this "free" Fed money to states has strings attached that most people are ignoring. For example one of Jindel's big beefs was that money that goes towards unemployment benefits requires that the state revise their unemployment benefits rules. He said the Fed money covers you for 2-3 years and after that all the business are stuck permanently with higher taxes and in the long run this would hurt job creation, not help it. Another governor (I can't remember which one) was talking about the "free" money going to hire teachers. Again, he said that the money would cover them for a few years, but then after that they would be stuck raising taxes to keep the new teachers employed. Generally, it sounded like some governors fear that the economic problems could drag on for more than a couple years and using the Fed money now instead of making cut backs could leave them in worse shape later. Of course, the governors that are protesting are the exceptions not the rule...