Putting things in perspective
With the raging debate over Texas’ Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund, it’s interesting to take a second look at the Texas Workforce Commission’s decision– at Gov. Rick Perry’s urging — to award a $90 million tax cut to employers.
First, from Perry’s March 2008 press release:
Gov. Rick Perry today announced that an estimated 370,000 Texas businesses will be getting a tax cut of $90 million, thanks to the state’s strong economy and low unemployment. “I believe in truth-in-budgeting: when government levies a tax and collects more money than is needed, we must either stop collecting the tax, return the money or both,” said Gov. Perry. “Thanks to our healthy economy and low unemployment rate last year, the state collected more money for the unemployment trust fund than we need, which is why I’m directing the state to bring that tax to a screeching halt for this year.” The tax cut will come in the form of a one-year suspension of the Unemployment Insurance (UI) replenishment tax. An estimated 370,000 Texas businesses will be eligible for the tax cut, which will save employers $90 million. The Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) approved the suspension of the tax after reviewing employment figures and economic forecasts for Texas and determined there were sufficient reserves to meet unemployment obligations for 2008.
Next, from a transcript of the TWC meeting in Commissioner Ron Lehman made a motion to grant the tax break, Commissioner Ronald G. Congleton opposed it and Commissioner Diane Rath voted for it, with reservations:
Congleton: Because of my fiduciary duty to the Trust Fund and the protection of 12 million working people and my doubts about the national economy right now, I have to vote no on this.
Rath: I will tell you it is with deep concern because of the increase in the unemployment rate, the increase payout rates, the national economic situation, and the indications we are seeing here in Texas. However, the governor supports this and I certainly support his position. So with that, we’ll eliminate the .12 percent for the replinishment tax, notify the employers as soon as possible.
Fast forward to Wednesday, when Commissioner Tom Pauken, in testimony before the Senate Nominations Committee, painted a bleak picture of the financial solvency of the Trust Fund: it’ll be broke by October, best case scenario.
A clarification: I wrote that the claims being paid now are 120 percent of where the amount being paid last year; it’s actually the number of new claimaints asking for help this week, which according to Pauken, is actually approaching 130 percent of the number of folks in the system at this point last year.
Given those stark figures, Pauken, who mentioned to committee members that he’s especially sympathetic to unemployed workers as his own son is now job-hunting, believes that some sort of bi-partisan compromise is essential on the stimulus money issue. Gov. Perry and Texas Association of Business president Bill Hammond object to the federal help because they fear it will come with “strings,” i.e. change eligibility so that more laid-off workers will be eligible for help from the Trust Fund. Pauken told me today he believes that if Texas segregates the federal money — and follows all federal stipulations — it should be free to revert to its old practices when it runs out of the federal money.
“I’m trying to work out a compromise in which we do change (eligibility) but that doesn’t mean that we have to do it forever,” Pauken said. “Once it (the federal money) is gone, they shouldn’t be able to dictate things.”
Bill Hammond has posted his arguments against a temporary change in eligibility standards in the comments section for the previous post. While Hammond has been roundly criticized for comparing extending unemployment help to laid off workers to a drug dealer giving free product to create more addicts, his analogy might have been borrowed from Perry.
Here’s what Perry told the Wall Street Journal this week with regard to stimulus money as it relates to all government programs, particularly entitlement programs: “If this expands entitlements, we will not accept it. This is exactly how addicts get hooked on drugs.”
Perhaps Perry feels differently about compensation for laid-off workers, since it is an insurance program, not an entitlement program, but he has failed to treat the two differently in his public comments about the stimulus.
Ironically, the addiction problem was worrying Diane Rath when she voted for the $90 million tax break for Texas businesses. She was afraid employers wouldn’t get the message that this was a limited deal, and would expect the break to go on forever. From the transcript of the TWC meeting in March, 2008:
Rath: I will say we will have to be extraordinarily careful with the wording with the notice that is sent out so that employers understand this is not a tax cut but is a one-time occurrence only and that next December when their tax notices are again sent out if the Trust Fund is not in the situation where this can again occur that it will not be a tax inrease occurring because my deep fear is that next December employers will perceive a tax increase when the elimination is not able to occur again, coupled with many employers having increased experience rated employers and the economy right now and the increasing layoffs and claims that we continue to see.
Sounds to me like she knew the tax break was a bad idea.
Tagged: Pauken, Perry, texas workforce commission, unemployment fund
mark says:
Apparently this bible thumping moron learned nothing from Joseph’s interpretation of pharaoh’s dream of the 7 starving cows eating the 7 fat cows.
Reply »
Cow Droppings says:
Bible thumping moron: hostility toward people of faith just in time for Lent
Reply »
texun says:
Cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes. It’s the Republican one-size-fits-all solution for whatever ails us.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
February 27th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
More taxes, more taxes, more taxes. It’s the Democrat one-size-fits all solution for whatever ails us.
Reply »
texun Reply:
February 28th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
But you’ll pay them, happily.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
February 28th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
NOT!
mark says:
glad to see you believe in truth in advertising.
Reply »
cow droppings Reply:
February 27th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
More personal attacks…all because I pointed out your obvious hostility toward people of faith.
Maybe you could use a little truth in advertising with your moniker:
Faith Hater
Venom Spewer
Bitter and Resentful
Just a few ideas.
Reply »
Jeff Crosby says:
It’s all just macho posturing to position himself against KBH. Perry got into this position in the ’06 general, and hasn’t deviated since (except for one disastrous foray into ovarian cancer). Regardless of how dumb or uncaring it may look, expect him to do more of the same.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
February 27th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
it’s cervical cancer, not ovarian cancer…big difference. i guess it’s too much to expect someone with a prostate to know the difference. but then again, if there were a vaccine for prostate cancer that would be ok, right?
Reply »
jolie says:
not the first time the unemployement compensation fund teetered on the edge of broke. I worked for the employment commission, as it was called back in the day, when the state applied for department of labor assistance to bail out the texas UI trust fund. this would have been mid-1980s.
paul, you may like to have someone research how that played out, including how employer taxes were adjusted to accommodate the loan. I’m thinking ol’ bill hammond was around back then.
OK, my point here is – texas has experience with the trust fund bankruptcy issue. texas employers managed to weather the uptick adjustments to their tax bill. they can do it again.
and I’ll add emphasis in support of an earlier poster’s note: the workforce cmsn MUST address the shortfall in the UI fund.
Reply »
Supply sided economics is out says:
The insurance is being paid for partly by the employer and partly by the employees, it isn’t an entitlement as Perry and co. have spinned.Perry is redistributing the wealth and getting away with it.
They collect the money and aren’t giving it back to who paid it as Perry claims. It isn’t even being given back to the business, they only get a credit. This is like a pyramid scheme where GOP drug dealers game the system to keep money and trade in credits.
The money gets collected and spent? on Perry’s agenda … Two pay in… Perry’s “bank” benefits and no “money” is ever released….. only a intangible tax credit. Perry and friends keep it his own pot if you will. The ones with the raw deal are the employees because they pay in and get nothing because of Texas’ severely outdated unemployment eligibility rules.
Reply »
anon Reply:
February 27th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Just how many designated funds through taxes, personal license plate fee, etc. are not going where they are designated to go? Anyone have a list? Does the Gov or state legislators let us know through public service announcements that
“we are taking money you gave us to “uncondem” state park restroom facilies and to replace old, worn out TPW vehicles, and we’re using it to cover our asses in another area”?
Reply »
cow droppings Reply:
February 27th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
no one has been purer than the governor on this issued, who has pleaded with legislators to stop the shell games. Big part of his state of the state address in 2007.
If you were to blame him for this, it smacks of pure anti-Perry bias.
Reply »
anon Reply:
February 28th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Saying something about it, and doing something about it are two very distinct things … and don’t tell me he doesn’t have the stroke to get it done. He has the bully pulpit. As soon as he knew another robbing peter to pay paul scenario was in the works, he should have yelled bloody murder. Only one little peep in his 2007 address? Pathetic! It’s the same old “I’ll let you get away with this, if you’ll do this for me” crap.
Jeff Crosby says:
Apologies to anon. My brain said cervical, but my fingers typed ovarian. That prostate will get you every time.
Reply »
cow droppings says:
Btw, Hammond didn’t compare the unemployed worker to a drug addict, but instead state government. Once state government becomes dependent on federal funds, when those funds are cut off they won’t have the power to go cold turkey. Instead, they will start funding it with higher assessments on businesses.
Reply »
mark says:
I’m not anti-christian, I’m anti-moron.
If the shoe fits…
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
February 28th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Here, here! I am both Christian and anti-moron!
Reply »
cow droppings Reply:
March 1st, 2009 at 1:10 pm
but are you anti-Bible-thumpin’ moron? I wonder why our friend Mark didn’t just call him a moron. It seems to me Bible-thumpin’ was there for a reason — perhaps playing to prejudices against Bible believin’ Christians. But here’s a question: is there really any other kind?
Can you follow Jesus as Lord and Savior and at the same time discard his words as recorded in the Bible? In fact, the Book of John refers to Jesus as “the Word”. It seems to me it means Christ is truth revealed, and Christ came to fulfill Scripture, or in other words, the Word of God.
Let’s see how this works: Mark says he is not anti-Christian, but he attacks Christians who make the words of the Bible the core of their faith. So, he is pro-Christians-who-don’t-believe-the-Bible-is-the-revealed-Word-of-God. In other words, he is for a group that has a sum total of zero human beings.
Reply »
Floozikins Reply:
March 2nd, 2009 at 10:01 am
The first gospel, being the gospel of Mark, was recorded 40 years after Jesus’ death and there were not direct quotes from Jesus.
Anonymous Reply:
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Do some serious study about the Bible (like beyond what’s in the book), Cow Droppings. You just might graduate!
B/CS Observer says:
I think the issue needs to be clarified for some people-
UI taxes will go up since TWC must make the UI payments. TWC will have to get a loan from the feds or issue bonds like they did in 2003 when the fund got slammed by the recession. I don’t think Hammond or TWC is disputing that, although I am sure Hammond heartily dislikes it.
What is at issue is whether or not the state should take the stimulus funds. That would require major changes in eligibility that would bring a lot more people into coverage for UI who have been excluded from the system to this point, like part time workers. The cost of that change over the long term would exceed the short them help from the stimulus funds. That change would result in a long term tax hike because the tax employers pay is experience rated- meaning if they have few layoffs, they pay less tax than a similar company with lots of layoffs. So if you add part time workers, who are much more likely to be laid off, every employer is going to pay more tax.
Reply »
Dennis says:
Yea Mark!
And a note to B/CS Observer – Texas has a legislature that meets every two years. It passes laws and stuff when it meets. Laws it passes this year to meet the stimulus requirements can be changed next time around. If you don’t know how this works, ask Tom DeLay. He is good at figuring out ways to change rules.
Rick Perry has made Texas the laughingstock of the nation. This silly political posturing, aimed at the hard core wingers of the Texas GOP, has to end. Not that things would be any better under Kay Bailey.
Reply »
twcwatcher says:
While it is both tempting and easy to sit in judgment of others, and to second-guess decisions made without the benefit of hindsight, to be fair we should consider all factors that would help an impartial observer evaluate the wisdom of the decision to approve a temporary rollback of the tax. For instance, has anyone studied how this particular decision affected the perception in the business community of the extent to which Texas has a favorable business climate? Specifically, did this decision help any businesses decide to bring jobs to Texas, to relocate to Texas, or to keep jobs here that otherwise might have gone elsewhere? My suggestion is that the judgment on the tax rollback is not so easy as to be defined by what happened to the number of laid-off workers – rather, at a minimum, we should also consider whether it played a role in creating or preserving jobs in Texas, before smugly boasting of our hindsight. Just a thought …
Reply »
cow droppings says:
Floozikins, you are correct. But the power of oral tradition in that culture was much different than today. The assertion of Christ’s divinity appears long before Mark’s gospel, in an early Christian Creed, just a few years after his death and resurrection.
On the validity and accuracy of the Bible, and the case for the resurrection of Jesus, I commend to all a book called “Case for Christ” by a former journalist, Lee Strobel, who investigated it after his wife came home a convert one day and he was pissed about it. He set out to disprove it. He could not.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Better books for people who are ready to stop checking their brains as they enter the sanctuary: “The Heart of Christianity,” by Marcus Borg, “Remedial Christianity,” by Paul Alan Laughlin, “The Pagan Christ,” by Tom Harpur.
Reply »
Floozikins says:
What is the name of this creed? It’s my understanding that the doctrine that Jesus had been God in human form was not finalized until the 4th century.
I prefer a more objective, academic book called “A History of God” by Karen Armstrong. Note the word “A”.
Reply »
mark says:
<i?”For when I was hungry ,you did not feed me. I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. I needed clothes and you did not clothe me.”
Apparently for gov. good hair and cow droppings for brains, the answer is a resounding YES.
Reply »
cow droppings says:
I do not believe the primary purpose of the gospel is a social agenda, but a salvation agenda.
We can surely differ on the degree to which government is obligated to use other people’s money to solve other people’s problem.
All I know, when I read the Sermon on the Mount, is that I have a personal obligation to feed the hungry, clothe poor. Whether I can assign that personal obligation to government is not so simple.
I also know that Paul achieved contentment in all circumstances, even using his time in prison to spread the gospel. Could he have written about the evil of his imprisonment, and pushed a social agenda about better counsel for the wrongly accused (such as today’s DNA debate)? Surely he would have had the basis for doing so.
But clearly his interest was in in spreading a message of spiritual redemption regardless of circumstance, not shielding people from the evils one will face in this world.
Some set about repairing the wrongs of this world as if this life is the only one that matters. Others set about repairing the wrongs of the heart knowing no matter how bad this world gets, there is an eternal hope beyond worth seeking and finding.
May not have the creed til tomorrow Floozikins. Sorry about the delay.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Before you leave, Cow Droppings, check out my March 2, 1:42 p.m. post if you haven’t already. It’s just not true that you have to be “Bible believin’” to be a Christian. And I believe Christianity, rightly understood, isn’t about the afterlife at all, but about the here and now. Not all, certainly, but too many Christians use that “eternal hope beyond” as an excuse not to be good stewards of what’s here already – people and all.
Reply »
mark says:
how convenient.
Reply »
cow droppings Reply:
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:36 pm
ah…great example of excerpting one piece of my diatribe without its full context…what critics so often do with the Bible I might add.
Did my post deny the social obligations of a Christian, friend?
No, it didn’t. I think Christians have tremendous social obligations — meeting them is the evidence of their salvation. In other words, it is the good fruit that comes from a changed heart.
But here is a distinction, and an important one: Christianity does not say that good works is the road to salvation. Quite the contrary. If we could ever be good enough in our own power, or by our own needs, that would mitigate the work done on the Cross.
Christianity is the acceptance of God’s gift through the cross of Christ, and good works are the overwhelming response to what salvation has done in a person’s heart.
Follow me? Not saying doing good things is not necessary. Book of James would call me a heretic if I claimed such. I am saying that calling yourself a Christian is essentially about humbling one’s pride and ego, admitting that sin is such a calamity in one’s life that you can’t fix it yourself (analogous to sobriety and the 12 steps), and realizing that God has already done it for you. Then, one accepts that and lives a changed life because of it…specifically because one did not earn it! Grace!!!!!
As for believing the Bible or not, I know some churches preach a Christianity without following Scripture. Some preach a Christianity without the divinity of Christ. Heck, some people go to church claiming they are Christians and believing that. But going to church doesn’t make me a Christian anymore than going to McDonald’s makes me a hamburger.
There are arguments within the pale of orthodoxy about the meaning of the idea that “all Scripture is God-Breathed” as Paul’s letter to Timothy claims. But, to deny the essential argument that God speaks to His children through the words contained in Scripture is not within the pale of orthodoxy. In other words, it is not what Scripture teaches, not what Christ taught (who affirmed the inerrancy of Scripture in the gospels.) For a Christian to deny Scripture is the inspired Word of God is for a Christian to deny their own faith.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Bible scholars will tell you that I. & II. Timothy were not written by Paul. Exactly what “scripture” were Paul (and allegedly, Christ???) referring to? It certainly wasn’t your Bible — couldn’t have been since they weren’t compiled until many years later. Start with “Remedial Christianity” by Paul Alan Laughlin.
Reply »
cow droppings Reply:
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:19 pm
specifically, the Scripture referred to time and time again — and that Christ specifically fulfills — is the Old Testament. Christians consider both the OT and the NT Scripture, but specifically when Christ and Paul are speaking it is OT.
Read Psalm 22 and ask if you do not see a vision of the crucified Christ hundreds of years before He walked the earth. Read Isaiah 53 for the same. Won’t take days to read like a full book…just an hour.
The odds of one man fulfilling the Old Testament prophesies as Christ did are so astronomical that one can only claim it is a “God thing.”
cow droppings says:
Not all Bible scholars. A lot of these challenges have been made over the years and they don’t stand up any more than the claims in the movie the Da Vinci Code.
Sure, there are some things we don’t know about the Scriptures. For instance, we don’t know who wrote Hebrews. But you know what? That doesn’t change the fact that the book is consistent with the Biblical narrative from Genesis to Revelation.
Even if I acceded to your point on 1 and 2 Timothy, it would only mean scholars are wrong about who wrote the book, but not that the letter is wrong about Christ or inconsistent with the rest of Scripture or the teachings of Christ.
I will give you even one more: we do not know for sure that the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman was contained in the original gospels. Some scholars who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture like me (the inerrancy part, not the scholar part as it applies to me) question whether it should be included in the gospel readings (which book it is in escapes me at the moment.)
So, let’s say something got added later. Entirely possible. But the claim of inerrancy of Scripture does not apply to later copies, but the initial manuscripts. In other words, while we may have Bibles with “mistakes” in them, it doesn’t mean Scripture is in error.
And to take the air out of the balloon on this subject, even if the story of the adulterous woman was added later, I take comfort in the fact, not knowing whether it was or wasn’t, that it is consistent with Christ’s teachings throughout Scripture. Christ says he without sin should be the first to cast a stone. That sounds a lot to me like pull the log out of your own eye before pulling the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Comfort yourself with analogies to the fictional DaVinci Code if you like. But when you get ready to get serious, read the book.
Reply »
cow droppings Reply:
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:14 pm
I am serious: make your case.
Reply »
cow droppings says:
Floozikins,
More on the divinity of the UI Fund.
The following is a Pre-Pauline creed that pre-dated his apostleship, and that was recited by members of the early church within years of the death of Christ. It appears in 1 Cor. 15:3-7:
For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures;
4
that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures;
5
that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.
6
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
7
After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
When I described it earlier I said it was a claim by the early church — those who lived when Jesus walked the earth — of the divinity of Christ.
More specifically, it is a claim about the death and resurrection of Christ — something I would say is the essential ingredient of a claim of deity.
As Paul writes, if Jesus is not risen from the dead, we (Christians) remain dead in our sins.
The approval of the books in the Bible did not take place until the fourth century.
Some want to say the claim of deity was later added and then canonized. But no one can read the Book of John and make an honest argument in that regard. Plus we have this early creed affirming Christ’s death and resurrection.
Reply »
mark says:
In other words, it’s all about believing. doing, eh, not so much. Like I said, how convenient. No wonder you like Perry so much, you both believe the same things.
Reply »
cow droppings Reply:
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:21 am
“faith without works is dead.”
Book of James
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Cow Droppings, you say you’re serious, but you want me to “state my case” rather than read even one of the books I suggested. Are you just trying to “prove” that you’re right? Or are you willing to learn and grow?
People go to seminaries for years to understand what the Bible really is: who wrote it, how it was put together, when and by whom. My “case” does not lend itself to formulaic recitation on a blog as does yours (a formula much like the one I grew up with but outgrew).
If you don’t like my other suggestions, try “Misquoting Jesus” by Bart Ehrman, or “Reading the Bible Again for the First Time,” by Marcus Borg — both religion professors/Bible scholars at large state universities — with significantly more education and expertise than Strobel, whose book is full of rather obvious holes once you have a little more understanding.
Blessings on your journey…
Reply »