NEWS
CLASSIFIEDS
AUTO
HOMES
JOBS
What's Inside:
Hyperlink Legend · E-mail story · Comments · iPod friendly version · Print friendly version

Missouri misses out on $133 million
Legislative provision disqualifies state from receiving federal stimulus money
by Alyson E. Raletz
Thursday, August 20, 2009

Missouri lost out on $133 million toward unemployment benefits because the federal government deemed a legislative compromise unacceptable, the Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations announced Wednesday.

“We’re probably going to have to go back and revisit the issue,” said Senate President Pro Tem Charlie Shields, R-St. Joseph. “It may be one of the issues that raises to the level of a special session.”

The Missouri General Assembly in May approved a controversial proposal to expand eligibility for the benefits in order to qualify for the influx of federal recovery money for the state’s unemployment fund. That came with a caveat that state law wouldn’t change permanently — future legislatures would have to renew the loosened requirements.

“Unfortunately, the U.S. Department of Labor has determined that the inclusion of that provision prevents Missouri from qualifying for Recovery Act funding for the program,” Missouri labor department director Larry Rebman wrote in a statement.

“I am disappointed by this decision, which will prevent the flow of benefits to certain jobless Missourians, despite the work done by this administration and a bipartisan majority in the Legislature to pass provisions that modernize our unemployment system.”

The new eligibility requirements, which Gov. Jay Nixon signed into law, are supposed to include Missourians who left their jobs for family reasons, such as domestic violence or family illness.

Republicans, such as Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder, House Speaker Ron Richard and Mr. Shields, stood on the Capitol steps this winter and said they’d be unwilling to change state law to accept the $133 million in stimulus money, because the two-year aid came with burdensome requirements for employers and a likely tax increase.

“When you raise the eligibility on this ... down the road you know the federal money is going to go away,” Mr. Shields said Wednesday.

The National Employment Law Project in February estimated those changes and others would cost the state an extra $88 million a year. The Missouri Department of Labor estimated that a separate set of requirements that could change how the state calculates initial income eligibility could result in an additional 3 percent to 10 percent increase in payouts from the state, or $28.1 million to $93.7 million.

Without the renewal, Republicans wouldn’t have supported the legislation, but even then lawmakers questioned whether the provision would meet federal approval.

“I knew that was an effort to kill the unemployment bill by Republicans. I was hoping it would squeeze by,” said Rep. Ed Wildberger, a St. Joseph Democrat who supported the bill. “Those workers in the long run are the ones who are going to suffer.”

State politicos were abuzz Wednesday with the possibility of a special session to address the issue.

Mr. Wildberger said he’d already called the governor’s staff, asking for him to call a special session during the same week of the upcoming veto session, which is set for Sept. 16.

If a special session is called, Mr. Shields envisioned possibly striking an agreement with the governor so legislators would remove the renewal requirement if he promised to sign off on a later repeal.

“Right now, this is all very preliminary,” Mr. Shields said.

A spokesman for Mr. Nixon had no comment Wednesday, according to The Associated Press.

The HB 1075 that the legislature approved to expand unemployment eligibility also allowed recipients who had reached benefit limits to receive up to 20 more weeks of compensation. The U.S. labor department did approve that language and so far, Missouri’s labor department has paid out more than $27 million to jobless Missourians, according to a state news release.

Alyson E. Raletz can be reached at alysonraletz@npgco.com.

  COMMENT
These comments are a means for our readers to voice their opinion on local issues in and around the St. Joseph area.
The following comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. We do not review every post or respond to every suggestion for a comment to be removed.
Before posting, please read the following rules:
  • Comments that threaten someone or degrade them on the basis of gender, race, class, national origin, religion or disability will be removed.
  • Comments containing abusive, vulgar or sexually-oriented language will be removed.
  • Comments that spread rumors or lies will be removed. Please discuss only what has been factually proven.
  • Comments posted in all caps will be removed.
  • Stay on topic! Comments that stray away from the original topic will be deleted.
  • Brief quotes are okay as long as the source is given. Blatant cutting and pasting is not acceptable.
  • Comments must be kept under 250 words or less.
  • Stjoenews.net moderators also reserve the right to remove comments for any reason they deem worthy.
Please read our user agreement
Orliandor August 20, 2009 at 6:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Politicians can really be sickening sometimes.

Recommend:
+ 0
- 0
xanzzz August 20, 2009 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is a classic both parties are at fault with politics as usual. You could have passed a law that did not have coverage expire to get the money and then just pass another revoking the coverage once the federal money dried up but none from either party wanted to vote to take away coverage of something.

Recommend:
+ 0
- 0
yougottabekiddingme August 20, 2009 at 8:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Sometimes??? We need a viable third party. One that is fiscally conservative. Next election my vote goes to the politician with the least amount of political experience which equates to a lower possibility of being corrupt.

Recommend:
+ 1
- 0
lindoris August 20, 2009 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

kidding, let us know when you find this elusive politico, I will vote for him.

Recommend:
+ 0
- 0
Thecitizen August 20, 2009 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Our Government will not let a person run unless he/she is a millionare. Or is backed by some. IE Truman......When was the last time you saw an average Joe win an election? It is a bad cycle that will not be broken because that's the way they want it. Those who have money have the power. Good luck on a third party. We have them. Green Party.....Unfortuanatly that doesn't mean green backs or they would be in office.

Recommend:
+ 0
- 0
Requires free stjoenews.net registration.

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment: