Would You Have Voted For It?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/22/jindal-stands-governors-refuses-federal-unemployment-benefits/

So...let me get this straight. In order to receive temporary financial assistance from the federal government, states must agree to permanently expand their unemployment programs to cover more part time workers? Wow. So when the government money runs out, states will have a larger pool of people to pay benefits to, forcing another stimulus package, higher taxes, or reduced expenses elsewhere in order to cover for the unemployed. Ridiculous.

Part of the reason why we are in the economic mess we are in today is because many bit off more than they could chew. Consumers and businesses relied too much on credit and continual economic growth. Governments have promised its citizens more than they can provide as the American population ages. If I was a governor, I would not accept any money that would force my state's unemployment program to be responsible for more people. Instead of handing out money to the unemployed (which requires redistribution of money from the private sector to people that will use it just to get by, not improve economic conditions), government needs to focus on creating jobs for the unemployed.

How should the government do this? As America is one of the least competitive countries in terms of taxes on Earth (see previous posts), the government should reduce business taxes. When businesses have better profit margins, they will be free to expand their businesses, hire new employees, invest more in research and development, pay its employees more, and contribute to economic growth. We could attract international investment and allow for more investment here in this country. Seems like a winning strategy to me.

Until we meet again, goodbye!