There is a good article coming up in The Nation's May 4 issue. It is out in the print issue, and I found it online. I have been so angry with the governors who are refusing the stimulus aid for the unemployed, and those legislators such as in Florida who are planning to refuse almost half a million for those who are jobless.
Apparently the same kind of things happened in the 1930s.
Dixieland BluesThe authors mention that across the country most governors are anxious to get their share of the stimulus to get people back to work, save teachers' job, keep libraries open.
Except in the South. Southern governors--Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Mark Sanford of South Carolina, Haley Barbour of Mississippi--have been pressing the case that the federal stimulus bill is a mistake; they argue the emerging Republican orthodoxy that tax cuts are the only effective way to pull the country out of an economic black hole. With 11 percent unemployment, South Carolina trails only hard-hit Michigan. Nonetheless, Governor Sanford plans to reject funds that would extend unemployment insurance, not to mention federal fiscal stabilization monies slated for schools and public safety, unless he receives assurance that he may use it instead to pay down the state's debt. As ProPublica reports, the state is about to lay off teachers in large numbers as a consequence.
Louisiana's Jindal may reject the unemployment money and $9.5 million in Medicaid funds that would cover health insurance for the recently unemployed in his state.
In Florida Charlie Crist is eager for the money, but the legislature may refuse part of the jobless benefits so as not to hurt businesses. They really have their priorities straight.
More on Louisiana:
This hardhearted pattern is not new. It is a replay of the Southern rejection of Roosevelt's New Deal. During the bleak years of the Depression, politicians below the Mason-Dixon line refused to provide relief to the poor and rebelled against federal intrusion into social policy. When most state governments were hemorrhaging, local and state governments across the South actually ran surpluses. How? They fired government workers and slashed funds for education and healthcare.
New Orleans, Jindal's pride and joy, ranked last among the nation's thirty-one largest metropolitan areas in the amount spent on relief in 1932--and was proud of it. It was the only city that made no provision for family welfare and offered no aid for needy mothers. Historian Roger Biles has pointed out that at the same time, the city council gave $10,000 (an enormous sum then) to the Chamber of Commerce to advertise nationally that the Big Easy was the "home of cheap and docile labor."
"Docile labor"....there is still some of that today.
As FDR pressed the states to join the federal government in providing for the millions who were unemployed, many politicians across the South said they couldn't--or wouldn't--do more for the indigent. Instead, governors accepted funds from the Federal Emergency Relief Administration while cutting the relief rolls or slashing the benefits provided to their most vulnerable citizens. Southern representatives in Congress abetted the governors and were so good at it that by 1939 the region had received only one-sixth of the federal dollars spent in the major New Deal programs, even though they had a quarter of the population. Southerners in Congress also fought for state power to determine who gets benefits and at what level--resulting in tremendous regional variations in the adequacy of public assistance that continue today.
These ideologically driven crusades are not merely historical artifacts. They have left their traces in the economic profile of the Southern states, which contain some of the poorest and least developed regions of the country. We hear a lot about Atlanta and Nashville, but the small-town and rural areas of the Deep South bear more resemblance to a Third World country than we like to acknowledge. That is owing to decades (and even centuries) of allergic reactions to the taxation required to fund the human capital every state needs for quality public school systems, hospitals, colleges and universities.
This is a powerful and uncomfortable article. It does describe so many areas of the South so clearly. This paragraph near the end is strong.
The history of the Great Depression in the Deep South has led directly to the problems we see in these states today. Since they are home to more than 25 percent of the nation's poor, and nearly 5 million of our poor children, what happens in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Texas matters to the rest of the country. FDR spoke of the "millstone" the region represented in his day and moved to create the Tennessee Valley Authority to bring electricity to rural hamlets so that they could join the twentieth century. The region, more than any other part of the country, needs that kind of farsighted investment, but instead it is treated to the shortsighted policies of the Southern politicians of the past.
Yet so many Democrats go along with electing Democrats who support these views in the South. I am not sure how that helps things get better.
I see this stuff happening in
Florida right now.While Republican Gov. Charlie Crist warmly embraced the Democratic spending plan, some Republican state House members suggested they might refuse some of the money. In the end, the Legislature will likely reject about $440 million in additional workers' compensation benefits that could trigger a higher tax on businesses.
Ideologically rejecting that which could help so many.
They plan to transfer the money coming for Medicaid's programs for the needy to other uses. Not a good idea.
The biggest chunk of cash for the state budget: $1.8 billion in Medicaid money. Medicaid rolls grew 9 percent in the past year, punching a $300 million deficit in the state-federal health insurance program. Now, about 14 percent of the state's population is on Medicaid.
But not all the money will remain in the program. About $900 million in Medicaid money is being transferred out to balance the rest of the portion of the budget that's in deficit.
The article ends saying "Playing politics at a time when millions are feeling the brunt of this recession is inexcusable--but it's also nothing new."