Wendy Rogers responds to David Schapira

In case you missed it, The East Valley Tribune ran a guest opinion by State Senate Minority Leader David Schapira on Tuesday. We won’t retread that article here but we will provide some space for the woman who should have been elected to that seat.

David Schapira is 100% Wrong
By Wendy Rogers

David Schapira, D-Tempe is 100% wrong.

I’ve owned an actual bricks-and-mortar business of 10 employees for 14 years. Employers like me pay 100% of unemployment insurance taxes in Arizona, not Schapira’s mythical employees “paying into the system”.

Unemployment insurance is an insurance product where experience ratings determine my business’s relative tax versus other employers’ taxes. The more my former employees draw Unemployment, the higher my set-aside rates are. Employers never see that money again, regardless of how well we take care of our employees. Moreover, employers like me pay Unemployment to both Arizona (dedicated toward the first 26 weeks of benefits) and the federal government. Combined – Arizona and the feds charge employers more than 3% on the first $7,000 of pay for each of their employees.

It’s true, extended benefits currently are being paid from the fed’s general fund – which these days means more debt; but how that debt is reimbursed is still “our problem” as businesses and taxpayers. We don’t differentiate between a dollar taken as federal tax vis-a-vis state tax as the governor and legislators do. They seem to think if it doesn’t come out of state funds; it must be free, right?

Bottom Line: Keeping Arizonans on Unemployment prolongs the ill effects and adversity of our sick market. It aggravates job recovery by spiraling down a deepening debt which makes recovery even more uncertain.

David Schapira should recognize who’s really paying for these benefits instead of making specious claims about pots of “free money”.


Comments

  1. As a conservative, I firmly believe that such programs rob us of the responsibility of saving money for the proverbial rainy day.
    Still, since much of our current problem lies squarely at the feet of corrupt government actions, it is hard not to feel sympathy for those who remain unemployed.
    The pottery barn rule would seem to fit the circumstances: “You break it; you own it!”
    Since the Feds broke the economy, do they not bear some responsibility for fixing it or at least helping to ameliorate the suffering, albeit with our tax dollars?
    It’s a no-win situation for our conservative legislators.

  2. A lot of people actually voted expecting other people to pay their bills. It’s always been an infantile expectation; more responsible people have been warning of the consequences, but so far the population would rather cling to their lazy fantasy than face reality.

  3. Wendy Schapira has set it out very clearly, short and to the point. Did she get any of that “equal time” so people hear the OTHER side of the issue?

  4. The first sentence of Ms. Rogers’ third paragraph is the only statement in her piece that is actually accurate –

    “It’s true, extended benefits currently are being paid from the fed’s general fund”

    As for the rest of it, well, by pretending that all of the money that supports unemployment benefits comes from and belongs to businesses, she is giving a preview of her 2012 campaign.

    Instead of trying to ride her bike to the legislature, as she did in 2010, she’ll be trying to ride a pack of lies all the way to a seat in the legislature.

    • John Adams says

      Well, well, well! It is certain that It’s usually a ‘Liar’ that accuses others of lying! You’ve proven that here Craig. Where ELSE does the money to pay unemployment come from if not from the business hirig the people?

      First, the Business is the Income producer and Job creator. IT hires people when the owner wants the best skilled people for the specific task. Most of the time the it is work the owner could do, but HE/SHE is also the one who can make the right decisions to provide the best service/right price to keep the business working and the employees working.

      That is common sense knowledge for everyone except for socialists/marxists like Obama, Shapira and obviously you! Perhaps you should study economics and business instead of Lenin, Marx and Rousseau.

  5. “Keeping Arizonans on Unemployment prolongs the ill effects and adversity of our sick market. It aggravates job recovery by spiraling down a deepening debt which makes recovery even more uncertain.”

    No wonder Wendy lost last November. Word to the wise when a good portion of your voters are depending on the meager sum to help pay for those nonsensical items like… paying your power bill( its no like you need AC in the summer time) or paying for medication, or you know paying for gas to get to those job interviews.

    With 9.2 percent employment in the valley and almost double that in surrounding rural counties. Can Wendy Rodgers and the rest of the republicans in the Senate and the House please point out all the job opportunism out there?

    As a republican I would like to thank the clueless republicans in the legislature for wiping out the gains we’ve made last year.

    Governor Brewer is right “you dont balance the federal budget by turning your back on Arizonans in their time of need. That not principled fiscal conservatism. Its just cruel” And might I add incredibility moronic.

    P.S.

    Mr. Biggs looks incredibility stupid when he stands on the senate floor railing on people on unemployment. What would he have them do? Play publishers clearing house? Oh wait….

  6. Benjamin Martin says

    FOUL on Craig! If there was one person who worked harder than any candidate in 2010, it was Wendy Rogers. The voters of District 17 should be ashamed of themselves for electing a group of tax dollar sucking, entitlement grubbing, freedom quashing legislators. Thank God that Schapira and his motley seat mates don’t have any power to pull the rest of the State into economic morass with their bassackward public policy ideas!

  7. SO where does the unemployment benefits money come from if businesses which pay it close? Why are businesses paying for that anyway? They pay salaries for working staff, why should they pay for non-working strangers, they don’t get any benefits from it. Shouldn’t the individuals be paying their own unemployment insurance?

    People are out of work because Democrats have spent every dime they can conjure through the next century, sticking the nation with debt and staggering interest obligations on that debt, and have imposed one financial burden after another so businesses are afraid to hire, have downsized and many have closed. And it’s NOTHING but BAD and WORSE ahead.
    All that talk about Hope and Change and the only employer hiring in the USA is McDonalds. It must be strange for McD to be one day piiloried by Democrats, the next praised and feted, but the jobs the Democrats are so excited about are the part-time, no benefits, low wage, burger-flipper type they traditionally mock.

  8. LEO IN TSN says

    Mrs. Rogers is 100% correct.

    As a small business owner, job-creator, wage-payer, tax-payer, and a provider of money to other businesses and individuals who will then pay taxes, she is all too aware of the current economic fiasco that seeks to control her business or even destroy it.

    Federal money is not “free” money. A huge chunk of it is MY money, every year. It is taken away from me to be spent on all kinds of programs that I don’t want to support by cozy, insulated legislators and governors who ignore their constituents. Our governor vetoed many good job-creating, tax-payer-protecting bills passed by the just recessed legislature, and now wants to distract attention by creating more unfunded (read “falls on the backs of the tax payers”) entitlements to expand the national (falls on the backs of taxpayers) debt.

    Interesting, isn’t it, how the liberal tax-and-spenders cannot refute the truth of Mrs. Rogers’ statements, and so they feel compelled to attack her personally. They always will try to intimidate and silence true conservatives because they can’t succeed in the forum of debate.

    It’s time for the job seekers to stand up for their rights to seek jobs, and then go out and take them away from the illegal aliens who are destroying our job market. Interesting, isn’t it, that many of the now-touted MacDonald’s Restaurants, the great “American” employer, have been some of the biggest hirers of illegals and proponents of open borders and amnesty?

    It’s way past time to hold those criminal employers accountable, and to resurrect the American job market in Arizona.

    God bless Mrs. Rogers and the other good patriots who are fighting to protect our future, and God bless Amerca.

  9. I really, honestly do believe in Mrs. Rogers concept that we take care of our own employees. That is about all small business owners can afford and it is not selfishness but good business sense. Myself, I am on social security. It is after tax dollars that I and my employeers paid into most of my working life. Had it been wisely invested, I would have a nice next egg and not beholding to those who can and do steal at their whim. I believe the government(s) should follow the Constitution. Most of them have not even read it. As things stand, should Mrs. Rogers run for office again, she can surely call on me again, at least to do the phones.

  10. I really, honestly do believe in Mrs. Rogers concept that we take care of our own employees. That is about all small business owners can afford and it is not selfishness but good business sense. Myself, I am on social security. It is after tax dollars that I and my employers paid into most of my working life. Had it been wisely invested, I would have a nice next egg and not beholding to those who can and do steal at their whim. I believe the government(s) should follow the Constitution. Most of them have not even read it. As things stand, should Mrs. Rogers run for office again, she can surely call on me again, at least to do the phones.

  11. Tom Dodson says

    I have to agree with Mrs. Rogers on this, I am a very small business owner and have some good friends who are major employers here in Arizona, All have told me that continuing to extend unemployment benefits does put a burden on the employer. One told me when they have a short surge in business they usually resist the temptation to do any new hires because they feel they will be forever anchored to their share of never-ending unemployment compensation if they are forced to lay them off in a downturn. I think that is very unfortunate biut an understandable business decision. There is the tough economic climate to be sure but we can’t threaten our employers with unknown long term expense questions. Private business can’t just invent money, they operate on balanced budgets. David Shapira is clueless on many matters and more of a liberal issue promoter than a sound business sense advocate of the people. I certainly will not look to him to promote the needed economic fix when many today tout only “green jobs” when we need to welcome jobs of any color. We must make hard decisions in the private sector so the legislature must as well. Start your own business and see how the burdensome regulation works over your bottom line. We need a vibrant economy and I can’t look to people like David Shapira to lead us out of this mess. Let’s make sure that legal citizens are employed with strict E-Verify compliance and let’s cap unemployment to a fair set term so employers can get some concrete cost advice from their accountants and CFO’s and then hire some people desperate to find meaningful employment.

  12. ConcernedInTempe says

    I strongly supported Wendy Rogers in the last election but it looks like she has a poitical suicide wish on this issue. If LD17 doesn’t get redistricted in such a way that it gains thousands more Republicans, Schapira is going to beat her by an even wider margin in 2012. Turning down federal unemployment benefits that have already been allocated by Congress is not a winning issue.

    Also, while Wendy is technically correct that the employer pays the unemployment taxes, basic laws of economics tell you that if there suddenly was no more unemployent tax, part of the money that was being paid in unemployment taxes would end up being paid out in increased wages to workers. So even if the employer is ultimately writing the check, a portion of the money is effectively being paid by the worker. Workers therefore do pay into the system.

    Wendy also fails to note that Arizona’s unemployment insurance has the second lowest maximum benefit in the country after only Mississippi. Given the higher cost of living in Arizona than Mississippi, we effectively have the lowest unemployment benefits in the whole country in terms of spending power. The notion that extending benefits is going to significantly “prolong the ill effects of a sick market” is frankly absurd when the *maximum* benefit is only $240 per week.

    If we want to get rid of bozos like Schapira, we need candidates that will make conservative arguements about job creation the centerpiece of their campaigns instead of ones who conduct ideological grandstanding on the backs of the unemployed.

    • Steve Calabrese says

      It’s all moot if the dollar crashes because of our irresponsible spending on the Federal level.

      Saying “Turning down federal unemployment benefits that have already been allocated by Congress is not a winning issue” ignores the fact that this nation is, by any objective standard instead of wishful thinking, bankrupt at the Federal level.

      America is slowly dying, the same way the Soviet Union did – through excessive spending on things it can’t afford. We can slow that process down, but the only way to STOP that process is to stop spending money we don’t have. We’re borrowing 40% of every dollar we spend at the Federal level. Either we stop spending, or we face an unprecented financial disaster. It’s that simple. Trying to say that Federal money is “free money” hastens our decline.

  13. …………………………………………………
    ConcernedInTempe says:
    June 11, 2011 at 1:57 pm
    Turning down federal unemployment benefits that have already been allocated by Congress is not a winning issue.

    Also, while Wendy is technically correct that the employer pays the unemployment taxes, basic laws of economics tell you that if there suddenly was no more unemployent tax, part of the money that was being paid in unemployment taxes would end up being paid out in increased wages to workers
    ……………………………………….

    First point: You could be very right about your first comment, because greed motivates people to grub money over common sense and long-term self-preservation. Pathetic, but a reality that politicians cannot discount in elections.

    Second point. What’s with THIS silly claim:
    “basic laws of economics tell you that if there suddenly was no more unemployent tax, part of the money that was being paid in unemployment taxes would end up being paid out in increased wages to workers.”

    Employers pay what the market will bear for the level of work required. McDonalds don’t pay $20 an hour because it can fill all the slots it needs, with a waiting list at $10 an hour. What noodlehead would pay $20 an hour for the same job everyone is willing to accept $10 for, judging by the application lines?
    Payscales exist for a reason, jobs have starting pay reflecting inexperience and max pay reflecting experience, but to pay more than that range for the same work is not only inefficient, but creates resentment within the organization. If people want higher pay than what their positions pay, they need to go for a different job with higher responsibility, and the higher pay scale, NOT demand MORE money for the SAME LEVEL OF PRODUCTIVITY. It’s a waste of money to pay someone double and get no extra production out of them. It is far more productive to have TWO people working for $10 each than to expect one person to do twice the work at $20. They WILL promise they can do it, but it just isn’t physically possible.

    If employers aren’t compelled to by the government to pay extra taxes like unemployment benefits to employees they don’t even have, (effectively paying twice even thrice for the same productivity) they can use that saved money to hire more staff, expand the business to serve more customers, uprgade exqipment, sponsor a local Little League Team, pay their kids college tuition. All sorts of OTHER things, NOT paying higher wages for the same output..

    As Wendy Rogers stated, the burden of unemployment taxes IS indeed hindering employers ability to HIRE more people and thus get them OFF the unemployment dole.
    Basic laws of economics.

    • ConcernedInTempe says

      It is not a silly claim. It is basic economics. Labor is a product like any other. Wages are prices. Prices are set by the market and follow supply and demand curves. Labor is also an elastic good. Unemployment taxes artificially add to the cost of labor. If unemployment taxes were eliminated, a certain percentage the difference would stay in the hands of the employer, but the remaining percentage would end up in hands of employees either in the form of higher wages, higher employment, or more likely both, in accordance with the supply and demand curve. That remaining percentage is, therefore, the amount of the unemployment tax that is effectively paid by the employees.

  14. Michael H. Manson says

    There is already plenty of anecdotal evidence that some unemployed are refusing to take available jobs until they can no longer get benefits. The amount of benefits paid and their duration should not be so generous that people feel comfortable not working or even looking for a job. That is common sense and once again shows the disconnect between reality, an understanding of human nature and the Democrat Party.

  15. Every employer that I’ve ever worked for paid the worker’s compensation…I, we as employees, do not pay into worker’s compensation; the employer does.

  16. Economic theory and empirical research show conclusively that, ceteris paribus, the current unemployment insurance (UI) system and delivery system of UI benefits cause SOME (a majority, but not necessarily all) jobless persons to delay looking for jobs in the formal sector of the economy, or to exert less effort in those searches than they would otherwise. At the margin, the many of the people who do not get 20 more weeks of UI will not only avoid going on welfare, but they may also get health care through their employers, thus getting them off of AHCCCS. That does not mean that all jobless persons are “lazy.” In fact, many persons on UI are working hard on job searches, and many are working very actively in the informal sector—doing odd jobs, getting paid in cash, and avoiding filling out paperwork (such as federal 1099s) that would tell the government that they are, in fact, employed.

    In the bigger picture, our current UI system is not very effective at distinguishing between the deserving and motivated jobless and the persons who are avoiding the job market and playing video games all day. And it’s probably impossible for government to effectively monitor the activities of the jobless to find out how actively they are seeking employment. (Unless they install webcams in our houses and cars to watch us from 9 to 5 on weekdays, or force us to spend eight hours a day in a government job-search center, and I think we can agree that’s not a good idea.)

    Instead of tinkering with enforcement of UI eligibility, we need to take a look at rearranging the incentives within UI. One candidate is Chile’s system of private UI accounts (which, incidentally, was expanded under a president from the country’s Socialist Party). Chilean workers put money away in their own private UI accounts, and then have the option of drawing down on those funds when they become unemployed. Because Chilean workers are spending their own money–not getting checks from the government–they have a greater incentive to get back into the formal and/or informal workforces as quickly as possible.

    Looking even more widely at the policy picture, we need to keep government welfare-state policies from creating what the economists call structural unemployment. And we need to reduce the tax and regulatory burdens that are killing jobs and stifling economic growth in this state and in this country.

    • ConcernedInTempe says

      If Wendy Rogers talks about fixing the unemployment system to be more like the one in Chile and other positive conservative pro-growth solutions to our economic problems she can win in 2012. If she keeps advocating blocking an already allocated extension of unemployment benefits in a state where unemployment benefits are low and the unemployment rate is high, she is going to lose big.

  17. Interesting study ranking states by economic and regulartory freedom
    http://mercatus.org/freedom-50-states-2011
    According to this ranking AZ is 22nd nationally, middle free, middle regulatory. Neither here nor there. New York, New Jersey, California, Hawaii and Massachusetts are the 5 worst free states in the nation, which explains the exiting residents stats.

  18. Great discussion taking place.

    Chile’s approach and logic to UI once was taken seriously here in the US when people would sock away 6-12 months of living expenses in case they lost their job. Dave Ramsey is a big advocate of that approach but sadly, too many people were caught off guard when they became unemployed. However, I do hope that we have all learned a lesson and will take saving money in an “emergency fund” far more serious if we ever pull out of this Great Recession.

    • ConcernedInTempe says

      We should also be looking at places like Chile and Australia for solutions to replace Social Security.

  19. It was American economists who designed the Chile system. We have the know-how, but not the political will to pry our politicians hands off controlling that money.

    I’d take a MUCH closer look at Australia before getting all excited about it. We’re getting earful from our student there, several times a week. Their minimum wage is about $16 an hour, and the average Australian is a bit too too too laid back on this “work effort” concept. THUS, employers don’t hire many people and are slow to expand in any measure, due to the high costs of salary and benefits, exactly the problem that Wendy Rogers describes up there, only magnified at TWICE the price. Eating out for example is VERY expensive – not so much the food, but the service costs are so high. The economy is moribund.
    For an American, the idea of a $16 an hour waitress sitting at the bar gossiping with other staff so that customers have to get up and go to the staff and ASK for a menu is galling, but that is COMMON there. The entitlement attitude is so bad, they do not seem to understand in any measure that their job is to sell food. Even with high prices, they do extremely irritating things like charge 50 cents for a packet of ketchup that every restaurant in the USA gives out for free.

    Very small town in attitude, they aren’t very open to ideas of American-style productivity, lower wages but with higher potential earnings thru hustle.

    The data may look all sweet, but the reality on the Australian street raises a lot of questions and concerns.

    • ConcernedInTempe says

      I only said that we should look to Australia for ideas on how to fix *Social Security*. I didn’t say anything one way or another on looking at them more broadly. Their system of privately funded “superannuation” accounts has largely solved their retirement funding issues.

      Although, while I wouldn’t want their high minimum wage and their restrictive workplace rules, I would point out that Australia has unemployment under 5% and was the only major Western economy not to go into recession at all over the past few years. In fact, Australia has not had a recession in 20 years. Some of this is due to the fact that Australia has reaped a windfall by exporting natural resources and agricultural goods during a rise in commodities prices and growing demand from China. But much of it is due to smart pro-growth policies put in place by governments on both the left and the right. There is a lot to look at and learn from based upon that 20 year track record of growth and prosperity.

      • Yes, that could be. But it bears looking at much more closely before pronouncing what they’ve done to be the model to choose There are a lot of warning signs that Australia is not doing as well as it should. Aussies are carrying heavy debt loads on their mortgages, it’s difficult to start up businesses, it’s expensive to hire staff, their work habits are low production, they expect a lot of free services.
        Their situation evokes Norway, all roses by the reports, until the socialist government starts admitting a few stats they had been omitting from the public.
        That’s all. It COULD be terrific, but the street view Down Under s not so good. There should be some more harmony between the two, not discord.

  20. Australia is in the midst of a baby boom. Pregnant women everywhere. Seems the government, terrified of the declining Australian birthrates, is offering $7,000 per baby.

    Sooo, Australian women are having kids expressly to cash in on the $7,000.

    They’ve got some issues Down Under.

  21. David Shapira, like most elected officials, is illiterate in both finance and economics.

    1.) The legislator did not deny people unemployment benefits; they chose not to vote to extend the benefits that they had already been receiving.

    2.) Arizona workers do not pay a dime toward their unemployment; it is the employers who pay this tax. This is part of the estimated 10% in taxes employers pay over and above what is paid to the employee. As for this tax money going into a pot – – – The only term I can remember from business and finance that includes the word pot is – “Ain’t got a pot to piss in”, which adequately describes the problem in which the states finds itself.

    It is so frustrating to see another politician playing the populist role, as opposed to quite work of a leader.

    As for the legislator voting for a state gun and a tea party license plates, I think those are excellent things for them to do. Based upon their level of economic literacy we are all much safer with the legislators doing that, as opposed to actually trying to fiddle with the levers of economics.

    • John Adams says

      When you include the Workers’ Comp rates, the employer portion of SS & Medicare, UC and Futa, it’s even more on part-time and lower wage workers.

      It’s cheaper per employee to have full-time workers, more productive and more skilled, than our current situation everywhere but Texas!

  22. W David Doiron says

    Two things:
    1. Less significant but still valid:
    I personally know several people who put off job-hunting until after UI ran out.
    2. Most significant:
    Why is Shapira talking about WHERE to spend money we don’t have?
    It would be like me debating whether to send a million out of my monthly budget
    to the Red Cross, or United Way. They are both deserving, but
    it doesn’t matter; I DON’T HAVE IT!
    The dems should change their theme song to “Wouldn’t it be nice” by the Beach Boys…

  23. SheetWise says

    ConcernedInTempe seems to be the only one who understands who pays unemployment premiums, and it is the employees. This is a tax on people who are working — pure and simple — it doesn’t matter who writes the check. The same applies to Social Security “matching” funds. If an employer has a $20 an hour budget for an employee, the governments command to send them $2 per hour doesn’t make $22 available. If the government commanded 50%, the employer would not provision $30 — they would offer the employee $10. There’s still only $20 to be split up between SSA matching, unemployment/disability, medical benefits, and whoever else has their hand in the mix. The math is simple, if the employer doesn’t hire the employee, they get to keep the entire $20 — if they do hire the employee, they get to distribute the EMPLOYEES earnings as instructed by the government. That applies to the PREMIUMS. Anything the government demands of the employer after that is simply extortion.

    Shapiro thinks the money comes from the tooth fairy, and Rogers thinks it comes from employers. Somebody needs to simply tell the truth about the program. If it’s insurance, then there are defined premiums and benefits based upon the risk. The end. Not to be renegotiated. If they are defined correctly, we should be able to privatize the entire program. I’ve never heard of an insurance contract that can legally redefine the benefits AFTER the insured has failed the risk test. That’s why it’s not privatized. It’s not insurance, it’s welfare without the stigma — and the premiums the employee pays are ridiculously low. The rest of it, we ALL pay for.

  24. GetItRight says

    HOLD ON…WAIT A MINUTE!

    Rogers proves herself wrong in her own post. Employers do pay for unemployment insurance, which pays for the first 26 weeks of unemployment checks, but this special session is about extended unemployment, which comes entirely from the federal government. This money comes from the very same bucket that every employee pays into through federal income tax. Employers pay into this bucket as well, but that doesn’t mean that individual workers don’t. When Schapira says that the unemployed should get their checks after “paying into the system,” he is exactly right. Now we can debate whether the benefits should be extended or not, but Rogers saying Schapira is wrong on this is inaccurate entirely political. Wendy, learn to lose gracefully.

  25. GetItRight says:
    June 12, 2011 at 4:25 pm
    . When Schapira says that the unemployed should get their checks after “paying into the system,” he is exactly right
    ………………

    That’s just great political rhetoric, but the “system” was Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, signed by Barack Obama, which spent that money and then borrowed more elsewhere for mysterious purposes which don’t seem to be visible. The “system” is 100 years of trillion dollar debt and crushing interest payments.

    It wasn’t socked away untouched to be paid out when needed, it’s LONG GONE. So, from where is the money coming to pay extension of benefits? There isn’t any. The “system” isn’t paying anyone anything, just TAKING.

  26. Wendy is exactly right and on point.
    As an Entrepreneur, as an Employer, as a Risk Taker, as an Investor, and as an Optimist I sincerely believe that America could, possibly might, get out of the economically dreary doldrums.
    There are prerequisites of course, first we need to get rid of all Freeloaders, worthless Bureaucrats, Fake Disabled of any sort of fake disability, voluntary Disadvantageous Sufferers, “Below Poverty Line Gamers”, the Power of the Labor and Employees Unions (especially the public service kind) and the Davis Bacon Act.
    Let Freedom ring and the spirit of competitive energy will again propel us to prosperity.
    It won’t happen under the current fellow residing at Pennsylvania Avenue.
    I guaranty.
    In the alternative, we will soon play second or third fiddle to India and China.
    My Motto: “The more Help the Helpless get, the more helpless the Helpless get”.
    Give that some thought and have a pleasant evening.

  27. My turn:

    In the short term, employers bear a direct cost associated with state or federally mandated unemployment insurance. This is a liability that translates to an expense.

    However, in the long term, that cost becomes indirectly passed on to consumers.

    Employer/businesses essentially have two options:
    1) They can choose to bear the cost which will most likely translate into a restricted or negative cash flow resulting in little or no future investment in capital or labor (= no additional hiring), a lower profit and possibly the demise of the business. Or,
    2) The employer/business can pass that cost on to the consumer in the form of higher prices or less supply or quality.

    If this discussion is really focusing on federal dollars that were derived from individual income taxes, that is essentially a transfer of wealth from those who have it to those who do not. Obama referred to this as “spreading the wealth around.” That obviously takes more cash out of the hands of the individual. Or, additionally worse, if the unemployment benefits extensions are derived from future withholdings, it is ultimately adding to the TRILLIONS of dollars in debt.

    No matter how you look at it, the wealth was derived in the private sector but was redistributed by the force and mandate of government to those who are not presently creating a good or service in the economy. It is a deadweight loss to society and a further incentive to follow a path of least resistance and not create additional wealth. It is a form of dependency or dare I say, enslavement.

    When we last left off with the Arizona Legislature, it appears that a majority of elected officials did not want to take part in the redistribution of wealth with the exception of those Democrats who would rather legislate based on emotions rather than on mathematics, behavioral science and sound logic.

  28. Amazing! Wendy Rogers, in plain English, tells it like it is and dimwits twist or selectively edit her explicit, clear, honest, concise statement. I’ve worked for 48 yrs now, my employers ALWAYS paid UI. I paid into SS, Medicare, local, state, Federal taxes, NOT into UI. It never shows on any pay statement that I paid UI. And guess what, after 48 yrs, with times of unemployment, I NEVER COLLECTED UNEMPLOYMENT. I am privileged to work. Most of the unemployed desire the same privilege, afew abuse the system; illegals abuse it the most. Now if some of my Federal Taxes HAPPEN to end up going toward extended Unemployment Benefits, I do not complain. But, the spiral stops when small businesses who WOULD hire if they were not punitively being forced to carry the load, are given tax incentives so they have enough breathing room TO hire. Wah-lah! We have job creation; one less unemployed, one more employed. Small Businesses are the key to our recovery, one new employee at a time. Tax Incentives, not draining Small Business will create the jobs we need. Dah! 1+1=2

  29. “These dollars come from the federal government, from a pot of money that Arizona workers have paid into for years.” -David Schapira

    The founders of our country hoped to have the federal government strike a balance between fixing society’s problems and conserving our liberties. If I can’t put food on the table, should my employer be responsible? If I can’t work, how much responsibility should the government assume?

    (See http://ryanhartwig.org/book-review-and-then-the-roof-caved-in for some discussion about the government’s involvement in the mortgage industry)

    If I’ve paid into a system whose ideologies don’t coincide with the founders of America, then should I continue to demand the existence of this system?

    “Bottom Line: Keeping Arizonans on Unemployment prolongs the ill effects and adversity of our sick market. It aggravates job recovery by spiraling down a deepening debt which makes recovery even more uncertain.”- Wendy Rogers

    Let’s be wise enough to realize the source of the system, the beliefs it represents, and treat the source of the problem, not the symptoms.

  30. thought I’d repeat that quote:
    ……………………….
    Bottom Line: Keeping Arizonans on Unemployment prolongs the ill effects and adversity of our sick market. It aggravates job recovery by spiraling down a deepening debt which makes recovery even more uncertain.”- Wendy Rogers
    ……………………..

    Hmm. Democrats politically need to stretch out unemployments benefits as long as possible. Out of work PAID people don’t turn on their elected officials who put them out of work the way HUNGRY, homeless people do. The Democrats NEED unemployment benefits paid out to as many out of work people as possible to keep them sullen, but satisfied JUST ENOUGH so Obama can be re-elected. They are just kicking the can down the road, no changes in the disastrous direction they put this counry on, just trying to appease voters with loose change long enough to win in 2012.

    Thus, Republicans should block extending benefits at every attempt.
    1) there is no money – it’s MORE debt, which will make it harder to fix
    2) there is no money, so the debt will at some point overcome any leverage to borrow money for benefits, so it’ll abruptly STOP, just nothing, no warning, leaving people in the lurch.
    3) there is no money, so extending benefits only short-term helps the Democrats, and long term helps the Democrats by the use of a form of voter bribery to keep Obama in the WH.
    4) There is ZERO benefit to Republicans: the Democrats will blame the Repblicans if they don’t pay, the Democrats will blame Republicans when the checks bounce, the Democrats will blame any NEW Republicans voted in for the sins of the old Democrats voted OUT, the Democrats will blame the Republicans for paying out benefits when there was no money, the Democrats will blame the Republicans for everything ANYWAY, so no extentions and let the voters get HUNGRY and UPSET before 2012, and point the finger at Obama and his budget-destroying co-horts Pelosi and Reid. The Democratic Party, top to bottom. I
    t’s going to end up the same if the Republicans allow extentions, the checks will bounce, but by then the Democrats will have solidified their hold on the WH, leaving the GOP out in the cold. forever.

    It’s no political leadership to allow a Stockholm Syndrome situation amongst voters, held hostage by the Democrats, but by the need for any kind of miniscule paycheck to keep themselves alive, willing to project their captivity fears unto the opposing party trying to rescue them?
    Enough!

    The ads write themselves, homeless Americans with $6 a gallon gas so they can’t even afford to drive themselves to a low paying job, and Obama with his lobsters and wine, private concerts, luxury resort vacations, endeless rounds of golf.

  31. When I was a child we were taught at home, school & church to do what is right because it is right.
    .I have been a life long republican.. John Q Public of Arizona did nothing that caused the problems our local state & federal governments find themselves in.. In the real world when the cash register comes out short there is an investigation as to why & who did it and you deal with those involved. When a business has an inventory shortage it is looked into and dealt with and some are held accountable.The fact is on all levels of government city, county, state & federal levels we are at-least short cash…. I wont even get into inventory. My point is who or whom did it and why. I think its time that we bring in private accounting companies such as KPMG, Price Waterhouse Coopers. BDO etc to audit the books etc of all levels of government and begin prosecutions of those who mishandled the public’s money elected or not..Personally I think we have politicians who are smug and have forgotten that they are public servants and keeper’s of the public trust. I have more than one emails form Sen Russell Pierce to me over the last 60 days where he was rude & haughty to me an Arizona Republican. His emails to me and hearing him on KTAR’s Jay Lawrence show back in June made me do a 180 about his possible recall.. I now support the recall effort. If he holds me an Arizona Republican voter in contempt. Its time for him to go. However in the spirit of bi partisanship i also feel its time to recall David Schapira as well. If the top Republican & Democrat in the AZ Senate are recalled from office at least on the state level on down it will send a message to all elected and public officials that the voters of Arizona have simply had enough.Its time for the voters of Arizona to do what is right because it is right. Start removing these bums from office and then politicians and public servants will get the message real quick.. Both Parties got us into this mess and both parties need to be held accountable and pay the piper on every level City,County, State & Federal. Russell Pierce & David Schapira are good starting points & attention getters..

Trackbacks

  1. […] Schapira Written by TPT Admin AZ News, Headlines, Local News Jun 14, 2011 Wendy RogersSource: Sonoran AllianceIn case you missed it, The East Valley Tribune ran a guest opinion by State Senate Minority Leader […]

  2. […] Schapira Written by TPT Admin AZ News, Headlines, Local News Jun 12, 2011 Wendy RogersSource: Sonoran AllianceIn case you missed it, The East Valley Tribune ran a guest opinion by State Senate Minority Leader […]

  3. […] as it turns out, the reply is nearly identical to a post that she had up on Sonoran Alliance the day before. She added a few words at the begining to make it look like it was actually a reply to what I had […]

Leave a Reply