If Ford plant in St. Paul closes in 2011, what could take the place of it. (Duluth: fit in, job market)

[Clifford63]

Originally Posted by Camden Northsider

As to hype of running out of unemployment funds, I wasn't speaking of the unemployment funds themselves, but rather specifically speaking to funding for employment & training agencies (e&t) or employment services for the unemployed. This hits close to home for me as I've actually had to lay off several senior employment counselor staff at my (largely government funded) agency over the past couple of months. There are some coffers related to employment services and other funds, but Pawlenty has already gotten his hands on many of these to fill budget shortfalls in totally unrelated budget areas (unethical in my view) - specifically the state's TANF (temporary assistance to needy families) reserves which fund employment services for families on welfare.

Also, if you look at Pawlenty's proposed cuts to Health and Human Services in Minnesota, the largest funder of the services I am speaking to in this and last post, the figures are much closer to 50% than 5% (i believe the correct number is 35%)- see below (several of these sources are pretty slanted, but you get the drift):

Fiscal fight: DFLers say Pawlenty agencies are gumming up the budget process | Politics in Minnesota
MN Progressive Project:: Pawlenty's budget: the amputation diet plan
MPR: Pawlenty uses stimulus money to reverse budget cuts
Pawlenty's Budget Would Shed State Jobs In Minn. - wcco.com (http://wcco.com/local/budget.cuts.state.2.922754.html - broken link)
Minnesota Independent: News. Politics. Media. » Pawlenty budget slashes family planning programs
In State of the State, Pawlenty hopes for job growth, but turns his back on most effective measures « Minnesota Budget Bites
Nothing Up His Sleeve: Pawlenty's Budget Is Smoke And Mirrors, A Cruel Hoax | DUSTYTRICE.COM (http://www.dustytrice.com/?p=618 - broken link)
While Feds offer relief, Pawlenty budget offers devastation (http://www.insightnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3981: while-feds-offer-relief-pawlenty-budget-offers-devastation&catid=10:news&Itemid=6 - broken link)

Have not followed this as close as some people. My overall take is there are some brutal politics in play. I thought the 5% accross the board was a reasonable approach as it would not drastically affect any one part of state government. That did not fly, so now it gets ugly with some programs taking bigger hits than others. Truly sad that many politicians are playing the game where they put one interest in front of the state as a whole. Reality is we are seeing cuts all over the private sector, unfortunantly state is not immune to downturns in revenue. The suggestion of raising taxes has pros and cons. In my opinion it is not as simple as some suggest to raise taxes on the rich. The potential to hurt small business is huge, and we certianly have to keep an eye on what we are doing to the business climate as a whole. We seem to be bleeding new opportunities already and tax hikes could really intensify this.

Sorry to hear this is hitting you harder than most. I really hate seeing the state take money that was earmarked for this and use it for that. I am livid that this new tax we put in place for the environment is likely to go into general fund before it is said and done.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte

Where it's headed isn't a good thing.

Well, I've heard fairly good arguments both ways, actually.

I'm biased towards having a decent unemployment insurance program in place, mainly because I know so many people (myself included) whose butts have been saved by it over the years.

Of course, anyone who is unemployed should be looking for work, hitting all of the temp agencies, etc., as a full-time thing, and if they're lucky enough to find something that pays more then it isn't as important. In this economy, though, that isn't always an easy task

[Ben Around]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Sounds like Minnesota is slowly being turned into Georgia.

Speaking as someone who has been through multiple unemployment stints, those aren't words of praise.

I heard Pawlenty discussing the state budget during the first year of his term as Governor. In health and human services, he pointed out how MN has been #1 among the states by many measures (programs, funding, eligibility, coverage, etc.) but questioned why it was important for us to be #1. He held up the states of TX and MS as two examples of states that provide what he termed as "adequate" safety nets for people, and their budgets were much smaller. I was stunned, I had never heard any leader of his stature make a plea for "good enough" before. Sounded like he wanted to start a race to the bottom.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by Ben Around

I heard Pawlenty discussing the state budget during the first year of his term as Governor. In health and human services, he pointed out how MN has been #1 among the states by many measures (programs, funding, eligibility, coverage, etc.) but questioned why it was important for us to be #1. He held up the states of TX and MS as two examples of states that provide what he termed as "adequate" safety nets for people, and their budgets were much smaller. I was stunned, I had never heard any leader of his stature make a plea for "good enough" before. Sounded like he wanted to start a race to the bottom.

I would say those states have far from adequate safety nets. You should be looking for a job if yopu are unemployed. With that said,there should be a decent safety net just in case finding work is very difficult, and in these times, it is very difficult.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Well, I've heard fairly good arguments both ways, actually.

I'm biased towards having a decent unemployment insurance program in place, mainly because I know so many people (myself included) whose butts have been saved by it over the years.

Of course, anyone who is unemployed should be looking for work, hitting all of the temp agencies, etc., as a full-time thing, and if they're lucky enough to find something that pays more then it isn't as important. In this economy, though, that isn't always an easy task

That is true. Persons who are unemployed should look for a job. With that in mind, there should be a safety net there to make sure they can make until the find a job.

[Camden Northsider]

Originally Posted by Ben Around

He held up the states of TX and MS as two examples of states that provide what he termed as "adequate" safety nets for people, and their budgets were much smaller. I was stunned, I had never heard any leader of his stature make a plea for "good enough" before. Sounded like he wanted to start a race to the bottom.

No kidding- don't TX and MS consistently rank at the bottom of quality-of-life surveys? And/or at the top in crime? Unemployment? Low wages? un-education? Race to lock up half the population of their state (and thus create much bigger tax burdens than any program will)? Yeah, why don't we just be more like Mississippi?

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by Ben Around

I heard Pawlenty discussing the state budget during the first year of his term as Governor. In health and human services, he pointed out how MN has been #1 among the states by many measures (programs, funding, eligibility, coverage, etc.) but questioned why it was important for us to be #1. He held up the states of TX and MS as two examples of states that provide what he termed as "adequate" safety nets for people, and their budgets were much smaller. I was stunned, I had never heard any leader of his stature make a plea for "good enough" before. Sounded like he wanted to start a race to the bottom.

I think Pawlenty needs to go live in Mississippi or heck even South Dakota to see what it really means to have an 'adequate' safety net. People live in MN BECAUSE of these things.

[Camden Northsider]

Originally Posted by golfgal

I think Pawlenty needs to go live in Mississippi or heck even South Dakota to see what it really means to have an 'adequate' safety net. People live in MN BECAUSE of these things.

I agree Golfgal, and in addition to just living there, he should be required to try and support his family at one of the many great un-livable wage PT non-benefited positions that have helped places like SD record relatively "low" unemployment rates in the current economy (when is the country going to start recording "under-employment rates"?).

Regarding Pawlenty's budget proposals- how much good is increased funding to K-12 education going to do in a child's life if it comes at the expense of his/her family experiencing greater levels of strain/ struggle at a time when they are probably already overburdened? Politics at its best-

[Clifford63]

Originally Posted by golfgal

I think Pawlenty needs to go live in Mississippi or heck even South Dakota to see what it really means to have an 'adequate' safety net. People live in MN BECAUSE of these things.

He would probably learn that they don't have a state orchestra pulling $32 Million out of the budget every year in Mississippi. In fairness, the orchestra just took a 7% cut, but I am just saying we have a lot of expensive stuff to pay for in MN.

I completely agree that a saftey net is important and people are right to expect this. Higher taxes does create the expectation more services. I would much rather see us cut some of the stuff we can do without to provide fundamental services that we have traditionally felt obligated to provide.

BTW, I am not suggesting we hack the MN orchestra. Just trying to point out we have a lot of very nice things that the state provides. If times are tough, it would be logical to cut on things that are not crucial.

I would like to think a family would cut cable TV out of the budget before tapping into the kids college fund, 401K, etc. Sadly many people don't have things like this to cut. Clearly the state has some ability to trim fat here and there without a erroding fundamental services.

Current gap we have is along the lines of $500 for every person in the state per year. If you pinned 80% of that on the "rich" as new tax, it would still hit a average family for close to a grand. I don't think people are getting just how bad we are in the red. Assuming "rich" equates to 10% of the population, and they have families too, we would ask about 125,000 families to pay an extra 16K per year in taxes.

For the record, I am not 100% against raising taxes, I just think the numbers we are looking at really force us to take a hard look at realistic cuts too.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by Clifford63

He would probably learn that they don't have a state orchestra pulling $32 Million out of the budget every year in Mississippi. In fairness, the orchestra just took a 7% cut, but I am just saying we have a lot of expensive stuff to pay for in MN.

I completely agree that a saftey net is important and people are right to expect this. Higher taxes does create the expectation more services. I would much rather see us cut some of the stuff we can do without to provide fundamental services that we have traditionally felt obligated to provide.

BTW, I am not suggesting we hack the MN orchestra. Just trying to point out we have a lot of very nice things that the state provides. If times are tough, it would be logical to cut on things that are not crucial.

I would like to think a family would cut cable TV out of the budget before tapping into the kids college fund, 401K, etc. Sadly many people don't have things like this to cut. Clearly the state has some ability to trim fat here and there without a erroding fundamental services.

Current gap we have is along the lines of $500 for every person in the state per year. If you pinned 80% of that on the "rich" as new tax, it would still hit a average family for close to a grand. I don't think people are getting just how bad we are in the red. Assuming "rich" equates to 10% of the population, and they have families too, we would ask about 125,000 families to pay an extra 16K per year in taxes.

For the record, I am not 100% against raising taxes, I just think the numbers we are looking at really force us to take a hard look at realistic cuts too.

You bring up a good point. Cutting all of the services wouldn't be a good idea. A safety net should exist just in case you do fall and you can get back on your feet again. I think places like Mississippi aren't understanding this.