Bredesen May Just Turn Down Stimulus

16 Responses to “Bredesen May Just Turn Down Stimulus”

1. RepBrianKelsey writes
   February 23rd, 2009 5:26 pm

   This type of money with strings attached is exactly the type of stimulus money that I am saying we should not be taking.

2. spaz writes
   February 23rd, 2009 5:36 pm

   Now this just looks like sour grapes from the Governor after he didn’t get that promotion in DC.

   Even if it wasn’t, Bredesen is an ass for even thinking about turning down any money.

3. Andy Axel writes
   February 23rd, 2009 5:40 pm

   Start the 10%+ sales tax watch.

4. spaz writes
   February 23rd, 2009 5:41 pm

   Oh, and “RepBrianKelsey”, let me ask you…

   Your support getting stimulus funds from the federal government so long as there are NO strings attached?!?

   Wow. That sounds just typical for Republicans. They want their hands on my money and no one to account to for it. How’s that been working out for us so far?

   Proving yet again that Republicans have no business anywhere near taxpayer dollars.

5. Ana Garcia writes
   February 23rd, 2009 5:42 pm

   It makes no sense to take money, expand a program, then lose the money and be left holding the bag permanently. That does not mean we should turn down all federal funds. We should anxiously accept those funds that can be used for roads, bridges, and other one-time investments. But it would be irresponsible to take other monies without acknowledging that the monies will soon go away.

6. spaz writes
   February 23rd, 2009 6:10 pm

   Well, if the money Bredesen is talking about is for unemployment insurance, how exactly would it be a permanent “expanded program”?

   Seems pretty obvious that this is to help unemployed people get through rough times the Republicans caused. Once people are back to work, they will be off the rolls.

   Frankly, this looks like buck-passing by Bredesen. After all, the Governor does have some power to create jobs at the state level through a variety of incentives. If there aren’t any jobs being created, then when Obama’s stimulus money runs out - thus creating the “unfunded mandate” situation - Bredesen would have to take some responsibility.

7. Disturbing Things I’ve Learned Between Lunch and Now « Tiny Cat Pants writes
   February 23rd, 2009 7:07 pm

   [...] Bredesen is threatening to not take the stimulus money.  Easy for him to say.  He’s got his party bunker and is term-limited and on his way out.  [...]

8. Sandy writes
   February 23rd, 2009 7:47 pm

   I recall a few months ago, Bredesen was deeply worried about the $800 million shortfall TN was facing in the budget. Now, the State’s problem is taken care of and he isn’t sure he wants to take it? WTF? Guess he really wanted to slash more education funds.

9. jen writes
   February 23rd, 2009 8:48 pm

   Our unemployment fund is facing insolvency and when that happens we’ll be penalized monetarily by the federal government. Why the hell would Bredesen turn this down? The excuse of strings doesn’t pass muster as the rolls will shrink as we get back to normal. This is a hardy f***U to hardworking Tennesseans who through no fault of their own find themselves without a job.

10. Don't spaz writes
    February 24th, 2009 9:21 am

    The new administrations effort to spend our way out of a problem is frightening. Clearly there are people that need an income. But Bredesen would be irresponsible if he lets Tennessee try to spend our way out of a recession. Buckle down, cut spending where possible and don’t lock the state into long term commitments when the tide is low.

    Breathe. The economy comes back just like the tide.

11. Scott writes
    February 25th, 2009 4:05 am

    Spaz, I’m not saying you should shut up. Just try to learn a little about something before you start bad mouthing. If you take a breath and then read your posts, you’ll see you sound goofy.

12. Trev writes
    February 25th, 2009 7:16 am

    Perhaps I’m wrong, but I don’t think that there is such a thing as a permanent law. It is up to the Legislature to make laws so I think they can pass or modify the law to accommodate the unemployment stimulus and then repeal it when the funds run out…

13. Pug writes
    February 25th, 2009 8:31 am

    Feb 25th, 2009 8:16am

    What is he afraid of? Having to account for money spent or maybe someone looking at what he has already wasted? The money from the stimulus has already been given back to the tax payers of Tennessee, so why not take it. Strings attached? So what? Maybe this is only a temporary fix, but if you are one of the many taxpayers of Tennessee who are struggling to keep food on the table or keep your home out of foreclosure, you would be happy to see some of this money create or maybe sustain the jobs. Now Mr. Bredesen, come down out of the mansion and put the people of Tennessee first!

14. Idahoser writes
    February 25th, 2009 9:20 am

    I don’t care what his reason is, it’s the right decision. I doubt they’ll leave it at that though, they don’t get what the porkulus is for if they can’t make you swallow it.

15. 2cents writes
    February 25th, 2009 11:06 am

    The problem with “temporary programs” is that they too often become permanent. Kind of like when we got all that Homeland Security money to put cops on the street. A great idea to begin with, but when the federal candy (money) ran out we had to either lay off cops or raise local taxes to pay for them. Better to only take the bailout funds for one-time projects like roads, schools, etc.

16. commentator writes
    February 28th, 2009 8:45 am

    Bredesen is being very wise to consider this part of the stimulus package very long and hard. The unemployment system is funded by employers. It is not a “welfare” or a give away program, it is insurance against being put out of a job through no fault of your own with no income. If TN accepts the incentive money, they must change their unemployment system in several ways. Which could not be undone after a few years. Such as revamping the quarter system, which would require a massive overhaul of the whole state unemployment computer system. Allowing part time people to draw benefits if they are only looking for part time work would be a forever change. Allowing people in training to draw as long as they are in training would not be too bad, but would require lots more monitoring. The really terrible ideas are to allow people who quit a job due to a sick family member to draw, or people who are “victims of domestic violence” to quit their job and receive benefits. These conditions are not the fault of the employer, employer taxes should not be required to pay for situations like this, and how in the world would it be possible to decide who was legitimately the victim of domestic violence or whose family member was really sick, and for how long. This is making unemployment into welfare, and is a very bad idea.Why couldn’t they just help the states shore up their trust funds instead of trying to put all these requirements for changing our systems in?