| Our Christian Governor PBJ has repeatedly stated that he will not accept $98.4 million in stimulus funding designed to help those who have lost a job in our state's oh-so-booming economy.
Well, Senator Landrieu's staff asked the Department of Labor to clarify the rules and regulations of accepting the money, and whether the state will have to repay any funds back to the federal government if they change state law to accept the funding, and then repeal the law enacted to enable the state to get the federal funding. Here's the Department of Labor's response. Here are the pertinent parts for y'all:
Section 2003 of the ARRA added a new subsection (f) to section 903 of the Social Security Act (SSA), which established UI Modernization Payments. Under Section 903(f)(4)(B)(i), SSA, the Department is to certify any state law provisions that meet the UI modernization requirements. Although this section requires the Department to disregard "any State law provisions which are not then currently in effect as permanent law or which are subject to discontinuation" when certifying state laws, it does not prohibit the state's legislature from repealing these provisions in the future.
As a result, if a state eventually decides to repeal or modify any of these provisions, it may do so, and it will not be required to return any incentive payments. However, in providing the incentive payments, Congress clearly intended to support states that had already adopted certain eligibility provisions and to expand eligibility to additional beneficiaries by encouraging other states to adopt these provisions. By specifying that the provisions must be in effect as permanent law, Congress also made clear its intention that the benefit expansions not be transitory. While states are free to change or repeal the provisions on which modernization payments were based subsequent to receipt of incentive payments, Congress and the Department rely on states' good faith in adopting the eligibility criteria.
I'm struck by a few things here ... As I understand it, currently, unemployment law disregards the last 3 months of employment for eligibility for unemployment insurance, a result of a bygone era where employment records were kept by hand. I believe most employers in Louisiana have modernized their payment systems, and have put everything on their computers, or their accountants' computers.
The second thing I'm struck by is the fact that the Deputy Assistant Secretary is quite cognizant of the power the executive branch has compared to the power of Congress. Would this even have been a consideration under the Bush Administration?
The last thing I'm struck by is the fact that while the law states that the states should make any changes to state law permanent, they are quite willing to overlook it to ensure that as many people get the help they need.
That, folks, is what good government is about. Making sure that as many people are helped. This is a SEA change from the Bush Administration ... especially when dealing with Louisiana, as we are all too well aware of. |
