As of Wednesday morning, Gov. Haley Barbour has yet to announce whether he will accept funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which could provide Mississippi with $2.3 billion for education, infrastructure and medical programs, most of which are struggling.

School Superintendent Hank Bounds told the Senate Appropriations Committee that four school districts are on the verge of collapse, according to the The Commercial Dispatch: Noxubee County, Indianola, Kemper County and Tate County school districts.

"We've exhausted every source we can," he said.

One of the sticking points for the Republican governor is the potential of having to pay unemployment benefits to those laid off from part-time jobs, according to the Sun Herald.

A spokesman for Gov. Haley Barbour said Tuesday evening the governor's staff was going through the hundreds of pages of the law "looking at each segment to make a conscious decision whether it's best for Mississippi."

"For instance, unemployment," said Dan Turner. "We believe it will require Mississippi to provide unemployment for people who won't accept full-time employment."

Turner said that would be a first for Mississippi and, therefore, "a leap."

"Is that something we want to commit to long term?" Turner said. He said they are trying to determine whether the state or federal government would pay for it after the first few years.

But in a state with the highest rate of teen pregnancy and babies born to unwed mothers, it's worth noting that many of those who "won't" accept full-time employment are single mothers. Also, many people employed in the state's agriculture—especially in impoverished areas like the Delta—do not have access to full-time employment.

The Sun Herald piece goes into detail on how Mississippi would allocate the funds, including $790 million for Medicaid, $392 million in "education fiscal stabilization dollars"; $331 million for roads and bridges and more.

The Obama administration, on its Recovery.gov Web site, says the package will create or save 30,000 jobs in Mississippi.

Previous Comments

ID

143717

Comment

Barbour is not interested in anything that serves the greater good. It is important for him to have this underclass. This ensures sovereignty for the Great State of MS. I can't believe this Governor. He is AWFUL!!!!!!!

Author

justjess

Date

2009-02-18T15:00:39-06:00

ID

143719

Comment

Good thing he won't be able to run again in 2011.

Author

golden eagle

Date

2009-02-18T15:05:14-06:00

ID

143722

Comment

...and all this State could see was John Author Eaves BIBLE.

Author

justjess

Date

2009-02-18T15:15:54-06:00

ID

143723

Comment

Barbour has literally left state government and returned to the national stage, where he is working to coordinate congressional opposition to all things Obama,even when legislation such as Schip and the stimulus disproportionately benefit Mississippi> Barbour is the wrong person to be governor during these serious times.

Author

chimneyville

Date

2009-02-18T15:28:30-06:00

ID

143725

Comment

[quote]...and all this State could see was John Author Eaves BIBLE. [/quote] Wasn't that kinda Eaves' fault? He put it out there.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2009-02-18T15:45:22-06:00

ID

143726

Comment

The Associated Press put out a fairly comprehensive piece titledHow Government Stimulus Will Affect You. I can't swear to its bias or accuracy, but it does go into all kinds of corners on the bill, including taxes, health insurance, infrastructure and more. Also, there's a piece on Center for American Progess Web site titled Supply Side Madnessthat points to the fact that economics need to be balanced. Here's a piece of it: [A]nyone as interested in markets as the rhetoriticians of the right claim to be can easily see that the problem in this economy is not on the "supply side." A market is created when the owner of a product finds a buyer willing to pay a suitable price. Markets develop as the sellers and buyers grow in proportion to one another. If there is a shortage of products, the market can be only as large as available supply will permit. Conversely, if the number of buyers shrinks, the market can only be as large as demand will allow. In a word, markets are symmetrical. They are subject to disruptions on both sides of the bargain, and the current disruption is entirely on the demand side as demonstrated by mounting inventories and declining retail sales. American businesses have been avoiding further investment in plants and equipment for more than five years. They used soaring profits to increase dividends, buy back shares of their own companies, or simply sit on mountains of cash rather than increase productive capacity. Chief financial officers have known for some time that American consumers have been less and less able to sustain the level of demand needed to keep the producers of goods and services operating at full capacity. It's an interesting premise... worth a read.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-02-18T15:46:18-06:00

ID

143727

Comment

Governor Barbour is a man interested in the welfare of our state. Just because our federal government offers funds with strings attached, doesn't mean we have to comply. I don't know how many of you have checked, but 30,000 jobs saved/created for a state the size of ours represents approximately 7500 jobs for each of our 4 districts. I think the key words in the 30K jobs are saved or created. I ask you what will that mean to stimulate our economy? If we are only saving some jobs and not creating 30k new jobs, is this what we want? The Federal Reserve announced today that they see our economy not growing until at least 2011 or later. That means more unemployment. How will our state pay for the unemployment benefits to part time individuals after the federal money is gone? Where will the funds come from...possibly more taxes on people who aren't able to pay for it. HIgher car tags, higher real estate taxes, and other taxes. I for one don't want anymore taxes.

Author

Caldera

Date

2009-02-18T15:49:02-06:00

ID

143728

Comment

LA Governor Bobby Jindal is apparently following Barbour's lead as he considers rejecting part of the stimulus.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2009-02-18T15:50:07-06:00

ID

143729

Comment

So, as taxpayers, we will get to help pay for the pie, but won't get to eat any of the pie?

Author

chaffeur

Date

2009-02-18T15:55:19-06:00

ID

143732

Comment

point well taken, because we all are going to have to pay our fair share, but as Mississippians we might not get full access to all the benefits. How so Governor Barbour? Its amazing how Republicans are trying to rewrite the textbooks on basic economic theory as it relates to supply and demand.

Author

lanier77

Date

2009-02-18T16:15:58-06:00

ID

143733

Comment

Governors Can Reject Obama Stimulus Money, but State Legislatures Can Thwart Them [s]tate governors must within 45 days of the bill being enacted certify that the state will request and use the funds, and that "the funds will be used to create jobs and promote economic growth." So it is the governor's call. But if the governor does not accept the money, then the state legislature can accept the cash "by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution." Point being, the people can override the guv on this one.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-02-18T16:38:50-06:00

ID

143736

Comment

the current disruption is entirely on the demand side as demonstrated by mounting inventories and declining retail sales But isn't the root of the problem in the credit market? Where the problem is definitely on the supply side? The only reason why there is excess supply in the retail markets is that people can't get credit the way they used to. The rates of personal saving has been in the toilet for years and people have been living beyond their means on their credit cards. That party is over. Yeah banks were stupid and greedy to let people borrow money they couldn't pay back. But to blame the government (or just one party in it) is to try and avoid the unpleasant fact that we all had a hand in this disaster. Almost no one wanted to speak up and say that we should stop consuming what we didn't have the means to pay for. People actually buy and pay interest for fast food now. I really don't know what it's going to take to make people wake up and realize that if we don't have sound fiscal policy in our own houses how can we expect it from the government. Like I have been told several times now on these pages the government is you and me. It's really no wonder that no one seems to care that we are borrowing trillions of dollars with no end in sight or any idea how we might be able to pay it back. Or even if what we are buying is worth the price we are paying for it. That's just how we roll. Buy it now because we can and we will worry about the actual cost later.

Author

WMartin

Date

2009-02-18T18:06:41-06:00

ID

143739

Comment

Caldera, Barbour's actions throughout his tenure have not proven to me that he cares one wit for the people of this state. To the contrary, he's proven himself a corporatist and has done everything in his power to ensure that corporations do well, while paying little to no attention to the people. For example, he has fought long and hard against raising cigarette taxes (which might actually improve people's health by helping them quit), while also opposing lowering grocery taxes (which, again, might actually help the one-third of the people in Mississippi who are impoverished). (I think everyone who's followed Barbour on this site knows that he still gets regular money from one of the biggest tobacco lobbying firms in the country, which seems a clear conflict of interest to me.) If he's interested in the people's welfare, he's got a pretty narrow definition of who the people in Mississippi are--it doesn't seem to include the poor, the uneducated or the needy. Say what you will about the federal dollars, but doing nothing--with the exception of slashing budgets--isn't the answer either. Whether we're saving (stabilizing) or creating (growing) jobs seems pretty irrelavant at this point. Unemployed people can't do anything to stimulate the economy. It takes buyers AND sellers to do that. Don't get me wrong; I'm not a die-hard fan of everything this bill represents, including the distinct possibility of higher taxes down the road. But we have to stop the bleeding and rethink our priorities to move forward. Lots of folks have been living awfully fat and greedy for a very long time.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-02-18T18:18:10-06:00

ID

143741

Comment

But isn't the root of the problem in the credit market? I don't claim to be an ecomonomist, WMartin (although my dad was), but I'd say the credit market is part of the problem, not the root of it. Creditors just responded to demand, but they didn't do it responsibly; it seems they just had dollar signs in their eyes. That said, I think the housing bubble bursting is surely closer to the root of our problems. Not only did creditors lend to unqualified people, but they were lending inflated values based on nothing more than speculation. I think you got it right when you talked about people living beyond their means. That's just nuts. But we've had such good role models in our leaders (not). We've had a high time, gotten in way over our heads, and now it's time to pay the bill. There will be pain involved, so we better get used to it.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-02-18T18:33:31-06:00

ID

143755

Comment

I'm not a die-hard fan of everything this bill represents, including the distinct possibility of higher taxes down the road. But we have to stop the bleeding and rethink our priorities to move forward. Lots of folks have been living awfully fat and greedy for a very long time. I have to agree with that. I was opposed to this bill at first. I thought it was too big, too fast for anyone to really know what the ramifications are. I am still somewhat worried about that. But you are right. Doing nothing besides slashing budgets isn't the answer for sure and more unemployed people can't help. We have tried deregulation and tax cuts to the nth degree. It's time for a different tactic. That said, I think the housing bubble bursting is surely closer to the root of our problems. Not only did creditors lend to unqualified people, but they were lending inflated values based on nothing more than speculation. I am no economist either but I think we are both talking about the same thing. The bubble burst when foreclosures and over valued assets stripped the lenders and investors of liquidity. I normally have a more laissez-faire attitude towards business but I think they blew it. Regulation of the credit markets is going to have be like that stupidity warning on your hair dryer that says you can't use it in the shower. It's there for the people who ought to know better but for some reason don't. And that industry has no one to blame but itself.

Author

WMartin

Date

2009-02-19T10:26:49-06:00

ID

143759

Comment

Regulation of the credit markets is going to have be like that stupidity warning on your hair dryer that says you can't use it in the shower. That's a great anology, WMartin. Like my mama said: It's all well and good until someone gets hurt. I think we also need to start thinking long term--as in 50 and 100 years down the road--something we aren't particularly good at. Collectively, we have difficulty seeing beyond the end of our noses when it comes to economic decisions. That's the way I'm looking at this act. We didn't get here overnight, and there's no such thing as a "silver bullet" to get us out of trouble overnight.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-02-19T10:46:45-06:00

ID

143760

Comment

Jeff Lucas, yes Eaves "put it out there." It is still interesting to me that one could see the Bible in Eaves' hand, but, could not feel the "PITCHFORK" in Barbour's heart. Barbour remains on a corporate lobbist high and he has forgotten, if he ever knew, the conditions of the mass of the people in our state. Must our Republican leaders ALWAYS follow the directions of the Dumb, the Stupid and the Uncaring? George Bush has only been out of office X 1 month. President Obama did not make these problems: He is only trying to solve them.

Author

justjess

Date

2009-02-19T10:47:53-06:00

ID

143762

Comment

Ronni M, where was all of this wit, wisdom and long term planning methodology during the eight years Bush was in office. Where was the brain of the country hiding while Bush was screwing the country up, financially, politically and ever other "cially" you can think of? Just asking.

Author

justjess

Date

2009-02-19T10:53:39-06:00

ID

143764

Comment

Barbour's strong desire, along with the rest of the GOP, to do whatever they can to simply see this administration "fail" is going to the detriment of every hard working citizen in the U.S. I'm convinced now that they simply refuse to get over the fact that an African-American male is President and they are going to spend the next 4 years fighting him tooth and nail, and they don't give a rat's a#% who gets in the hurt in the process.

Author

lanier77

Date

2009-02-19T11:11:32-06:00

ID

143768

Comment

justjess, Americans have always had the wit, the wisdom is certainly up for debate. The long term planning? We haven't done much of that at all. We (collectively) have a thing for instant gratification and a very short attention span. It is certainly your right to blame the whole mess on Bush. His administration, in my opinion, does deserve a lot of the blame. But I also believe that there is a lot of blame to go around on both sides of the aisle. Absolutely no one, Republican or Democrat, warned of the impending collapse. No one wanted to be the one that rained on the parade of easy money or wanted to say that maybe we had made it too easy for people to own houses. Imagine a politician railing against risky low income loans and trying to get the practice stopped. They would have been pilloried in the media. You might have even said that they were racist and didn't want minorities to own homes. It would not have been popular but it would have been the wise thing to do. What's the deal with Eaves' Bible? I must have missed that.

Author

WMartin

Date

2009-02-19T12:14:45-06:00

ID

143769

Comment

where was all of this wit, wisdom and long term planning methodology during the eight years Bush was in office Great question, Justjess. But like WMartin points out, we have a thing for instant gratification. And it didn't begin with Bush. Actually, there were plenty of folks who tried to warn us. My dad accurately predicted this mess (he didn't get ALL the details right) in the '60s, though he couldn't get it published. For the most part, they were poo-pooed and trivialized in the midst of all the high living. We've talked about the '70s gas crisis on this site, for example. America (and Americans) had nearly 40 years to do the right thing when it came to ending our reliance on foreign oil, but we chose SUVs (among other carbon-intensive stuff) instead of investing in alternative energy sources. One of the results of those decisions is Middle East terrorism. It's all part of the same "bigger, better, more" syndrome.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-02-19T12:38:47-06:00

ID

143778

Comment

Come on now Ronnie M. Do you remember the positive budgetary condition this country was in during the Clinton years? With all of the tricks of the Bush Adm., we could have still survived had he not taken the Country into war with Iraq. That war is costing tax payers 12BILLION DOLLARS/MO. The war has lasted more than 7 years. My life experiences are probably a lot different from that of yours and your Dad's. I grew up in the segregated South and during the 60s a black person could not buy a hamburger from Burger Chef. No black person could get a loan from the bank: No matter how good of a pay-master he/she was. A black person could not buy life insurance (An avenue that a lot of whites gained wealth). We could only buy burial policies with an adv. value of $100.00. There was no such thing as "instant gratification." Life was hard: Money was scarce and we worked hard with our parents to keep a store going. We had no grant money for college and there were lots of kids who were very bright, but, parents were not able to borrow the money to send them to college. Maybe your population of "instant gratifiers" need to be identified. The gas crisis of the 70s taught us all something. We learned to conserve and out of it, many relationships were developed by moms and pops who car-pooled, turned lights off and put weather strips around doors to save energy. Brother Bush is in a category all of his own and as soon as other Republicans realize this and accept some responsibility, we can all start doing what we can, with what we have, and from where we are.

Author

justjess

Date

2009-02-19T14:41:38-06:00

ID

143780

Comment

Justjess, you are so right. Not having grown up in the South, I appreciate your reminding me of a context that doesn't come naturally to me. I am an immigrant, although white and from a long line of educated western europeans. I expect that it colors my world view quite a bit. Thanks for the reminder. Bush certainly did his level best to bankrupt the country. I expect, though, that it just sped up the inevitable. He didn't pave a lot of new road; he just stupidly--criminally by many standards--blundered down it's darkest alleys.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-02-19T15:39:56-06:00

ID

143787

Comment

[quote]We've talked about the '70s gas crisis on this site, for example. America (and Americans) had nearly 40 years to do the right thing when it came to ending our reliance on foreign oil, but we chose SUVs (among other carbon-intensive stuff) instead of investing in alternative energy sources. One of the results of those decisions is Middle East terrorism. It's all part of the same "bigger, better, more" syndrome.[/quote] Exactly right. People have been predicting this scenario for 40+ years, yet government ignored the prophesies and American consumption of energy skyrocketed, making us more dependent on foreign oil. If we had taken bolder steps in the 1970s and 80s to commit to a comprehensive energy independence plan focused on petro alternatives, the pain at the pump last summer would never have occurred.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2009-02-20T06:57:22-06:00

ID

143789

Comment

•That's just how we roll. > Right, WMart, ha ha...until the wheels fall off. WMart, there were several prominent economists who warned of the pending economic collapse. Nouriel Roubini was warning people back in 2006, but he was treated like Chicken Little --- . Ronni M, I'm no economist, but I have a masters in it :-). The problem began with irresponsible borrowing and lending in housing, but ninety percent of the crisis is due to the fact that unregulated financial markets were able to package up bad loans and make highly leveraged bets on them, trading credit default obligations to the point where they were several times more than they were worth. They traded these , pseudo-investment-grade vehicles all around the world like a virus until the whole system was incurably infected. They probably had masters degrees in business or economics that boosted their confidence (ha ha).

Author

FreeClif

Date

2009-02-20T09:36:48-06:00

ID

143790

Comment

Whitley, I should have been more specific. I was referring to our political leaders. Nice description in a nutshell BTW. ;-)

Author

WMartin

Date

2009-02-20T09:48:22-06:00

ID

143794

Comment

Whitley, that's a good, succinct description of what happened on the credit side of this mess. And, since you're a damn sight closer to being an economist than I am, I'll go with your analysis. Coming back to WMartin's previous post, I still have questions regarding "supply side" economics. I understand that without free-flowing credit, suppliers have great difficulty fulfilling demand, but it seems to me that credit is simply the vehicle to get "supply" to "demand," not a supply in and of itself. That's part of the problem, isn't it? Acting as if the means is the thing itself--which leads to treating loans (debt) on speculative value as a real asset instead of the thin air that they are. That's sort of like selling a 50-cents-off coupon for a sandwich that hasn't been made yet to a starving person for a $1.

Author

Ronni_Mott

Date

2009-02-20T10:39:06-06:00

ID

143801

Comment

Ronni, for businesses, capital is the supply of the credit market. Whether it's capital to expand through capital improvements which usually creates jobs or increases wages, for inventory, for payroll or any number of other things a business might need. That borrowed capital is a liability for the business borrowing it, not an asset. It's only an asset to the lender. The value of which is directly tied to the ability of the borrower to repay the debt. The same is true for private debt, e.g. mortgages, etc... Since the mortgage debts were securitized they were assumed to have a good value. Primarily because there was confidence that those lenders knew better than to use the blow dryer in the shower.

Author

WMartin

Date

2009-02-20T13:13:18-06:00

ID

143802

Comment

Whitley is right. Many people incorrectly see this as simply a housing bubble crisis, which was just the trigger but not the gun. Regarding the economy during the last 8 years: War is stimulus (government spending); Low interest rates is stimulus (almost the same as easy credit); Lower taxes is stimulus; Lobbying is stimulus (preferential treatment for set-asides, legal advantage, freedom from lawsuit, etc. for corporations and wealthy folks) (sorry about the subject verb confusion, but I hate the word stimuli) It isn't at all strange that we had a bubble in housing and energy prices, we were stimulated to exhaustion, yet without creating much value - little or no improvement in infrastructure, health care, military readiness, personal savings, education, sustainable energy or environmental protection. Instead, most folks just paid more for the things they couldn't do without: food, gas, pills, and housing with stagnant wages. It is sad and frightening that yet more stimulus is needed, but I am glad that now there is a sensitivity toward human needs and some long-term value built into the present stimulus package.

Author

gwilly

Date

2009-02-20T13:15:47-06:00

ID

143807

Comment

Politico is reporting that LA Gov. Jindal is refusing to accept part of the stimulus specifically targeted at expanding state unemployment insurance coverage. I didn't know it could be partially rejected.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2009-02-20T17:55:44-06:00

ID

143849

Comment

I saw that silly stuff that Jindal spewed out; however Ray Neigan(sp) said he would accept all of the money that Jindal didn't want. This is grandiosity at its best. It also sends a message that I won't take hand-outs from an A-American. Barbour was on CNN yesterday and of course he too sounded as backwards as Jindal. If the unemployment insurance coverage does run out, then it would have given many people the opportunity to be housed and fed. I guess both Jindal and Barbour are exposing their intellectual limits and the fact that they are without any creative abilities. TRANSLATION: These folks just simply want this President to FAIL and they are willing to eat crap and sleep on the grass to ensure it!

Author

justjess

Date

2009-02-23T10:07:28-06:00