Florida's GOP Gov't Cuts Unemployment Benefits

There's a saying we often use that says, "you get what you pay for." I don't know who actually made that up, but if ever there was doubt to the validity of this assertion. One only has to look at what Republicans have been doing at the state level since last November's midterm elections. Surely this is what voters wanted when they rushed to the polls to ensure that "certain people" were able to "get their country back," like they did in Florida. So, me being the perpetual cynic and all around asshole, I must ask: are you people satisfied yet?

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — A bill that would establish some of the deepest and most far-reaching cuts in unemployment benefits in the nation is heading for the desk of Gov. Rick Scott.

The Republican-controlled House and Senate passed the compromise measure just before the legislative session ended Friday night.

The legislation would cut maximum state benefits to 23 weeks from 26 when the jobless rate is 10.5 percent or higher.

If lower, the maximum would decline on a sliding scale until bottoming at 12 weeks if the jobless rate was 5 percent or less.

Both chambers were agreeable to a sliding scale, but the House wanted to cut the maximum to 20 weeks while the Senate wanted to keep it at 26.

The benefit reduction is expected to cut unemployment taxes paid by employers, but not until next year.

Florida has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, 11.5 percent, and already had some of the lowest unemployment benefits.

Critics called the legislation cruel and wrongheaded. But its supporters — including the bill’s sponsor, Representative Doug Holder, Republican of Sarasota — argued that it was needed to help businesses and to aid job creation.

Mr. Holder had said earlier that the average amount of time people remain on unemployment in Florida was 17.7 weeks and that most people would be unaffected by the legislation, at least in terms of how long they would collect benefits.

As of late March, more than 535,000 Floridians were receiving unemployment benefits.

Worker advocacy groups fought the legislation. But the business community, led by the Florida Chamber of Commerce, made passing the House version of the bill a priority, contending that businesses would benefit greatly from relief from the escalating tax to pay for jobless compensation. (source)

Yep, this is just what Floridians voted for. Of course I'm only guessing this is what they want, because, I have yet to actually ask one or many Floridians; yes, I haven't spoken to my man Max Reddick in some tome, so I don't know. Maybe someone who lives in Florida reading this can fill me in on just how satisfied Floridians are with the downsizing of that humongous gov't; the one that cared about unimportant matters such as unemployment benefits.

I feel bad for the unemployed residents of Florida, but their gov't isn't as sympathetic or empathetic. Clearly, they see themselves as offering the proper motivation for those lazy bums to get off their asses. But I'd be careful the next time I voted (or decided to stay at home and not vote) if I live in Florida. At the rate these Teapublicans are going, don't be surprised if they brought back slavery and forced the unemployed to pick oranges for free for the Koch Brothers.

Michigan Lawmaker Says Kids in Foster Care Should Only Wear Clothes from Goodwill

Michigan State Sen. Bruce Casswell

by Joanna

If you believe, as I do, that all politicians and the majority of "common" people in this country just do not give a fuck about the poor, then you should recognize how important it is for us to raise awareness to issues which impact the poor. The truth is, politicians, no matter what party they belong to, simply will not do the right thing, unless they feel significant pressure to do so from the electorate.

Earlier today, this story was brought to my attention:

Under a new budget proposal from State Sen. Bruce Casswell, children in the state’s foster care system would be allowed to purchase clothing only in used clothing stores.

Casswell, a Republican representing Branch, Hillsdale, Lenawee and St. Joseph counties, made the proposal this week, reports Michigan Public Radio.

His explanation?

“I never had anything new,” Caswell says. “I got all the hand-me-downs. And my dad, he did a lot of shopping at the Salvation Army, and his comment was — and quite frankly it’s true — once you’re out of the store and you walk down the street, nobody knows where you bought your clothes.”

Under his plan, foster children would receive gift cards that could only be used at places like the Salvation Army, Goodwill and other second hand clothing stores.

The plan was knocked by the Michigan League for Human Services. Gilda Jacobs, executive director of the group, had this to say:

“Honestly, I was flabbergasted,” Jacobs says. “I really couldn’t believe this. Because I think, gosh, is this where we’ve gone in this state? I think that there’s the whole issue of dignity. You’re saying to somebody, you don’t deserve to go in and buy a new pair of gym shoes. You know, for a lot of foster kids, they already have so much stacked against them.”

Caswell says the plan will save the state money, though it isn’t clear how much the state spends on clothing for foster children or how much could be saved this way. SOURCE

I did a little research into the story, and found out that foster parents and parents who are on welfare in Michigan receive $80 a year as a clothing allowance for their children. This lawmaker wanted to limit the ability of foster parents to spend the allowance in thrift stores.

I wasn't exactly sure how much of a saving this would be for the state; he was not putting forth the idea of a reduction in the allotment of funds. Instead, he was trying to distinguish where the money could be spent; and, it seemed kind of like an attempt to punish kids in the foster care system.

Well, after looking online for more information, I found an article on NPR that indicated that Caswell apparently changed his position. He is now putting forth a proposal that would have the state issue the clothing allowance in the form of gift certificates to major retailers. He also proposes that the state work with stores such as Walmart or Target to allow discounts for children on assistance so that the clothing dollars will go further. He has now changed his tune, and says that the reason for his proposal is not to save money, but rather to insure that the clothing allowance actually goes towards the purchase of clothing.

Ball of Confusion (Madness)

¡Hola! Everybody...
What can I say? There’s sooooo much going on in the world today it’s hard to figure out where to start... (lots of links!)

* * *

It is bad enough that people are dying of AIDS, but no one should die of ignorance.

-- Elizabeth Taylor

First, while the mostly conservative US media and political class assure us that toxic sludge (or at least “safe nuclear reactors”) are good for us, you’d better not drink the water (or milk) in Japan, cuz, you know, the radiation levels are kinda/ sorta above levels. Shit, I live about 25 miles from a steaming mess of nuke that’s more dangerous than the Japanese glow-in-the-dark one. Imagine trying to evacuate about 22,232,494 (more or less) people from the NY Metro area? We’re not very polite... LOL

I find it ironic that the same people who were after the Village Idiot’s head (on a platter) for waging war under false pretexts and redistributing wealth (upwards), now applaud Obama as he does the same. In fact, we’re fighting three wars right now. Teachers are being fired, jobs (and record profits) continue to be outsourced, republican state governors are trying to bring us back to the days of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire tragedy, and we just ejaculated 131 Tomahawk missiles at $1 million a pop.

Hold on while I sneeze:

::ACHOOO-HYPOCRITES::

Sorry, but I’m allergic to moral cowardice.

On the entertainment front, raging beauty, talented actor, compassionate activist, Elizabeth Taylor passed away. The first time I saw The Last time I saw Paris, I was so struck by her beauty, it felt as if her image was burned into my brain synapses. What a gorgeous freak of nature! IMNSO, Taylor was matched in beauty and talent only by the as sublime Dorothy Dandridge (who, unfortunately, wasn’t allowed to shine). Taylor also cared, she left the world a little better than she found it, AFAIC.

I spent all day yesterday meeting with lawmakers and attempting to sway their positions regarding criminal justice policy. The event was part of a coalition of organizations that included a group from the Juvenile Justice movement. Right now NY State, which is facing a so-called budget deficit, is maintaining several empty prisons at the cost of more than $200 million per year. In addition, we’re closing schools at a time when we’re sending juveniles to prisons deemed inhumane by federal investigators. The cost of keeping one child in prison per year in New York state? Over $100,000. Some researchers put the actual cost at over $200,000 per bed, per year!

The good news? For me it was hanging out with a great bunch of very young activists, who were well-versed on the issues and who, in passionate terms and an informed manner, schooled members of our state legislature on the foolishness of incarceration as a panacea for all social ills. Even legislators hostile to our agenda seemed genuinely impressed by the young people in my group. I’ll be writing little bit more about this process later on this week. For those of you who like to beat up on our youth, I am compelled to ask: what the fuck are you doing to make this world a better place?

So, there you have it: there’s the mess, the message, and there’s also solutions to the mess. Which part did you play today? Are you making this a better world?

Just sayin...

My name is Eddie and I’m in recovery form civilization...

Hey, John Boehner: GOP Spending Cuts Treat the Poor Like Wet Food Stamps

I have a lil' something to say about the Obama Administration's proposed 2012 budget released a couple of days ago. But that's gonna be in an upcoming post shortly so stay tuned. However, I've heard it said that Obama's proposal plays heavily as a political move to ensure re-election. Supposedly it's designed to pull in independent voters, who as I'm told, are more concerned about this country's budget deficit than the jobs crisis. Who needs to work in a recession, right?

Of course this sounds ass-backwards to me, but then again, I'm not a fence-straddling independent voter. I'm just an asshole with a blog who just so happens to believe, that "we the people" (yes, even the unemployed lazy ones too tired to look for work as said by Conservatives) are what makes America great. Having said that, lets take a listen to what one professed independent voter calling in to C-SPAN's Washington Journal thinks.

The subject of the show being the GOP's proposed budget cuts. Viewers were asked, "What if any programs would you like to see cut from the federal budget?" The real irony here is the fact that the following response to the question comes from an Ohio resident who just so happens to live in John Boehner's district. You know, the same Boehner who said "so be it" should the GOP spending cuts create job losses? Yes folks, Boehner will be here all week.

You gotta watch this:


Now I'm not the smartest person in the world, but even I can see a problem with this callers asinine proposal. Much like the proposed GOP spending cuts (and some of the White House's) the idea to cut Food Stamps is an assault on the already working poor, and newly poor. But I suppose nothing is more motivational as saying, "put down the Beluga Caviar and get a job you lazy bum," than proposing to cut food stamps; that'll learn them teat suckers.

Uh-Uh.. You Can't eat THAT on Food Stamps!

First, they want to blame food stamps for the obesity epidemic in the United States, then, they want to prohibit Food Stamp recipients from buying "unhealthy" items such as soda. Now, people want to take issue with the fact that some food stamp recipients are using their benefits to purchase "luxury" items like fresh vegetables and organic foods.

"Hipsters on Food Stamps" are the new targets being scrutinized in the media for not looking and behaving enough like REAL poor people. Apparently, young people who were raised in privileged environments, and are now unemployed and living at or below the poverty level are not the "right kind of poor". I guess if you grew up wealthy you are magically immune to poverty? If you are a college graduate who cannot find a job in today's economy, you are just too lazy, right?

The increase in food stamp use among this demographic is hard to measure, as they represent a cross section of characteristics not specifically tracked by the Agriculture Department, which administers the program.

But general unemployment figures among the group are stark: Between the ends of 2007 and 2009, unemployment among those aged 20 to 34 rose 100 percent, and between 2006 and 2009, unemployment among those with a bachelor's degree or higher was up 179 percent.

And in cities that are magnets for 20- and 30-something creatives and young professionals, the kinds of food markets that specialize in delectables like artisanal bread, heirloom tomatoes and grass-fed beef have seen significant upticks in food stamp payments among their typical shoppers. At the Wedge, a market in the stylish Uptown neighborhood of Minneapolis; at New Seasons Market, a series of nine specialty stores in and around Portland, Ore.; and at Rainbow Grocery, a stalwart for food lovers in San Francisco's Mission District, food stamp purchases have doubled in the past year.

"The use has gone way up in the last six months," said Eric Wilcox, a cashier who has worked at Rainbow Grocery in San Francisco for 10 years. "We're seeing a lot more young people in their 20s purchasing organic food with food stamp cards. I wouldn't say it's limited to hipster people, but I'm certainly surprised to see them with cards."

Young urbanites with a taste for ciabatta may legitimately be among the new poor, but their participation in the program is far from universally accepted. A New York Times story in late November about the program's explosive growth generated a storm of comments online, with many readers lobbing familiar accusations of laziness and irresponsibility.Source

It seems like many people believe that the only people who have a legitimate right to government assistance are married white people who work in blue collar professions. Because God knows we are all familiar with the images of the "unworthy" poor. Single mothers, Black people, immigrants, the mentally ill. Now, we can add a new group to those people who are deemed undeserving... "hipsters" who have fallen into poverty.

Are Food Stamps Making Poor People Fat?

by Joanna (JuJuBe)

I did something the other night that I have not done since I was in college: I wrote a letter to the editor of the newspaper. I read an editorial the other day in which the writer made a ludicrous assertion that Food Stamps are making poor people fat. He then went on to state that Food Stamps should be discontinued, as should school breakfast and lunch programs. I guess he is of the opinion that it is better to be malnourished than to be a bit overweight.

The basic premise of his opinion is flawed. He claims that poor people eat more because they get such a huge amount of Food Stamps that they overeat rather than lose out on the Stamps. This is just about the most ridiculous thing I have heard! First of all, it is not like Food Stamps gives an exorbitant amount of assistance. $668 for a family of four is not a huge amount of money for a month's worth of food. People who rely on the Food Stamps program have to make food choices that will allow them to get the most for that money, and the cost of so-called "health foods" are prohibitive.

Let's face it, the less nutritional value and the more fat in a food the less the food costs in many cases. For example, chicken wings and legs are 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of chicken breasts. Yes, they are higher in fat than breasts, so nutritionally the wiser choice would be breasts. However, if you are on a limited food budget, the legs and wings would be the better choice. Similarly, sugar-free and fat-free versions of many other foods cost more than the regular versions. In addition, generic foods are cheaper than name brands, and most of the time, generics do not come in lower fat versions.

Top Social Security Myths: Don't Drink the Kool Aid!

¡Hola! Everybody…

Dang! The Neocon Zombies are back again. I swear! You can’t kill this plague of failed ideas no matter how many time they fail. Who's next? Milton Friedman?!!

Today, perhaps emboldened by the recent elections, the goobers, with the help of some very powerful people, are spreading misinformation about one of the most successful government programs ever (and not just in the US, but globally) in order to scare people into passively accepting benefit cuts. Even so-called “liberals” such as Lawrence O'Donnell (who calls himself a socialist ::cough::) and Dylan Ratigan, are framing the social security debate in a way that makes it a foregone conclusion that cuts must be sustained.

Truth be told, O'Donnell is a dyed-in-the-wool corporate democrat cut from the same Rahm Emmanuel (and now Obama) cloth. The assumption that SS must be cut/ taken apart/ given as a gift to Wall St. to mangle is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Don't be a sheeple (<-- same as teabagger). Check out this list of Social Security myths and share it with your friends, family and coworkers.

Stop. Look. Listen...

Myth: Social Security is going broke.

Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.3 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever. After 2037, it’ll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits--and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers retirement decades ago. Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.

Myth: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.

Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than did 70 years ago. What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly -- since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half. But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.