$100 million sounds like a lot of money, but it does not go very far these days. It is less than .01% of the deficit.

The problem with such thinking is government programs start out "small" then end up costing tens of billions of dollars as each party tries to outdo the other in an attempt to buy voters.

Please consider Labor Dept. Attempts to Stop Layoffs by Giving $100 Million to States to Subsidize Payrolls

The Labor Department announced on Monday that it will be awarding almost $100 million in grant funding to states to prevent layoffs by allowing businesses to pay employees as part-time workers and the federal government will pick up the tab for the cost of a full-time paycheck.

The “work-sharing” program was passed as part of a Republican-led bill in the House, H.R. 3630, and Senate Amendment 1465 to extend the payroll tax deduction and unemployment benefits. In February 2012, President Barack Obama signed the bill into law, which included the $100 million in funding.

The work-sharing programs “allows employees to keep their jobs and helps employers to avoid laying off their trained workforces during economic downturns by reducing the hours of work for an entire group of affected workers,” according to the Labor Department.

The grants will be given to states that apply and meet certain requirements, including having short-term compensation programs in place that meet federal guidelines. Workers will have “wages compensated with a portion of their weekly unemployment compensation payments,” according to the Labor Department.

The largest pot is available to California, with $11,593,587 in grant funding listed. New York and Florida can get around $6 million, with Illinois and Pennsylvania eligible for more than $4 million each.

Reader Andrew who sent me the link, writes ...

1
Mike Shedlock

Mike Shedlock

Mike Shedlock is a registered investment advisor representative for Sitka Pacific Capital Management.

Most Recent Articles

Join the Debate
17 Comments So Far
loadstar Wrote: Aug 17, 2012 12:21 PM
You say Romney/Ryan plans would destroy Medicare?!

HOGWASH! Leftist dissembling...the guvment itself admits that Obama MUST raid Medicare to get some of the funds for ObamaCare! The cost of the damm guvment takeover of H/C keeps soaring in leaps and bounds as the CBO looks further at it.

The Left has LONG salivated about taking over H/C.

The original Medicare had cost 900% (!) of original OMB projections just by 1990-- after just 25 years!

The guvment CANNOT be involved in providing services. Even the military, which the constitution actually provided for, is OBSCENELY overpriced and wasteful. Consider the USPS-- what a boondoggle!
Blair31 Wrote: Aug 17, 2012 12:02 PM
Why? It's time to let the government sector lost its jobs.
S211 Wrote: Aug 17, 2012 11:35 AM
"Insipid communism", to quote a movie. GIVING taxpayer dollars to democrat voting states. Why isn't this ALL OVER the news??? Sure would be if George gave a bunch of money to Texas and other "red" states, no?
loadstar Wrote: Aug 17, 2012 11:26 AM

Last time Obama, the Pied Piper of Unwanted Change, fooled many of the people, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

But with half of tax filers paying no federal taxes, and almost half of households getting at least 1 guvment check every month, and the Welfare (with no work required) and Food Stamp ranks swelling again, he will surely get the many guvment dependent votes.

As Margaret Thatcher noted, a problem with taxing OTHER people to pay for your freebies is that you eventually run out of other people to tax. RR's father to him: if you make not working (Relief) attractive enough, why work?
loadstar Wrote: Aug 17, 2012 11:17 AM

Obama's very demeanor, ideology, and approach are antithetical to recovery and progress. He BELIEVES in Big Brother, Wealth Transfer Entitlement Guvment! They USED to believe in that in the USSR and China!

Only an unbridled NARCISSIST could spend so much time blaming others for HIS own obvious failures. He NEVER accepts accountability! His own words damm his results-- HE said he would not deserve re-election with a deficit so huge and unemployment so egregious. He has never really worked in a real job-- he has NO IDEA why our system of enterprise normally works wonderfully.

He is simply the product of radical influences that he himself has recognized---> Revrund Wright, Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers-- in whose parlor his career began.
kenneth416 Wrote: Aug 17, 2012 11:00 AM
Mr. Shedlock, the bill which included this boon-doggle was passed by a Republican-majority House of Representative. Why do our R's continue to do such stupid things?
natch Wrote: Aug 17, 2012 10:26 AM
"Neither party is willing to tackle military spending."

The sequester should take care of some of that if it makes it. Military spending doubled since the 2001 fiasco and now that that has been virtually resolved I see no reason why spending shouldn't return to pre-911 levels. Otherwise it's just being used as another form of welfare.
M1946W Wrote: Aug 17, 2012 10:05 AM
Don't worry Mish. Obama is already seeing to those military spending cuts. As we learned recently he'll have a lot more flexibility if he's re-elected. Jobs won't be re-appearing anytime soon regardless. I feel sorry for today's youth. They will truly be a lost generation.
David4 Wrote: Aug 17, 2012 9:48 AM
Two queries.
Mish wrote: "The idea that government should be supplementing anyone this way [work-share] is of course ludicrous." -- The idea comes from Germany and they think it is great. A better criticism is wanted.

Mish several places wrote: "Jobs are too few." -- Yes, and it is worthwhile pondering why. I suggest that by destroying capital and decreasing productivity we can see "full" employment. It must be at a decreased standard of living, but everyone can be employed. That is one way and it will work. Any other ideas?
natch Wrote: Aug 17, 2012 10:17 AM
It's clear you spent little time "pondering why".
kenneth416 Wrote: Aug 17, 2012 10:58 AM
David4, you are right! We can achieve virtually full employment, but, unfortunately, it will come at the expense of a decreased standard of living. A couple of examples might illuminate the issue--1) ban all self-service gasonline stations, requiring a trained, unionized, gasoline dispenser, earning at least $20/hour, plus generous benefits, with retirement at age 55 with a full pension, 2) ban all self-serve elevators, requiring a trained, unionized, elevator operator, 3) prohibit the use of calculators and cash registers which automatically compute the change from a purchase, etc. etc.
Robert97 Wrote: Aug 17, 2012 1:43 PM
NJ does ban self-service gas stations. I don't know what the attendants make, but our gas prices are still significantly below the gas prices in nearby NY State due to their high gas taxes.
Greg1084 Wrote: Aug 17, 2012 7:33 AM
The demographic time bomb is ominous. Deadly so.
Greg1084 Wrote: Aug 17, 2012 7:29 AM
We need a slash and burn leadership. What the hell do we need a large standing army for, anyway? A navy and Marine Corps is all we need.
S211 Wrote: Aug 17, 2012 11:37 AM
The military is the LAST thing you want to cut Greg, especially the Army. Not much of a student of history are you?
rpexplorer Wrote: Aug 17, 2012 7:06 AM
What continues to baffle me is how and why these crooks (the whole government) continue to get away with this? Where in hell is the congress? Shut off the money spigot or are they being paid to look the other way? Is this the result of the stoppage of earmarking? I am ashamed of this government - definately at the bottom of third world list.
Greg1084 Wrote: Aug 17, 2012 7:28 AM