3 ms·

> it implies that employers wouldn't know that they'd be on the hook for unemployment deficits, despite it being an explicit part of a pretty-well trodden piece

by fxd123 3y ago

> it implies that employers wouldn't know that they'd be on the hook for unemployment deficits, despite it being an explicit part of a pretty-well trodden piece of federal law. This is misleading- employers know they would need to pay for any deficits. But employers did not expect there to be deficits- no one expected that CA would default on the loan. And the reason why CA defaulted is frustrating: "When states across the country received loan-free federal aid as a result of the federal government’s unprecedented emergency spending packages, most chose to use at least a portion of those funds to pay back the federal loans they’d been forced to take to support their unemployment programs. California received $15.3 billion in federal Coronavirus Relief Funds, *but allocated none of it to repaying its outstanding loans.*" [1] The same article also points out that CA could have paid off the loan easily with their surplus ($97.5 billion)- but they simply decided not to... > because "a maximum of $21" isn't quite as eye-popping as $18.5 billion The issue is in the end, the $18.5 billion will all be paid off. It's still an extra $18.5 billion being paid that would not have been paid otherwise, if CA had been more responsible. [1] https://www.ocregister.com/2023/03/27/california-had-a-97-5-billion-surplus-why-are-employers-being-forced-to-pay-off-the-states-defaulted-loans/ https://www.ocregister.com/2023/03/27/california-had-a-97-5-...

dragonwriter 3y ago
> The same article also points out that CA could have paid off the loan easily with their surplus ($97.5 billion) The amount of is greater than the amount by which the state was below the Constitutional spending limit, so, no, it could not easily have done so; it maybe could have called it emergency spending to avoid the limit — which takes a supermajority vote and some other things (since the state had the choice of not spending it and allowing the Feds to collect it directly, it probably could not have used the federally-mandated spending exception.) > The issue is in the end, the $18.5 billion will all be paid off. It's still an extra $18.5 billion being paid that would not have been paid otherwise, if CA had been more responsible. Sure, if the state had had the foresight to prepare its systems for a once-in-ever event in advance, the costs that ended up needing paid back might not have been incurred. I will respect this criticism somewhat if you can point me to the people making it advocating the necessary changes in advance of the need, otherwise...
- fxd123 3y ago
  > had the foresight to prepare its systems for a once-in-ever event in advance As I already said, which you ignored: "California received $15.3 billion in federal Coronavirus Relief Funds, but allocated none of it to repaying its outstanding loans." > I will respect this criticism somewhat if you can point me to the people making it advocating the necessary changes in advance of the need Here is a WSJ article criticizing CA's choice to not use reliefs funds to pay the loans: https://www.wsj.com/articles/democratic-led-states-let-their-federal-unemployment-debts-linger-11657531801 https://www.wsj.com/articles/democratic-led-states-let-their... But it really does not matter, since your mind is already made up and you are being disingenuous.

by fxd123 3y ago

dragonwriter 3y ago

> The same article also points out that CA could have paid off the loan easily with their surplus ($97.5 billion) The amount of is greater than the amount by which the state was below the Constitutional spending limit, so, no, it could not easily have done so; it maybe could have called it emergency spending to avoid the limit — which takes a supermajority vote and some other things (since the state had the choice of not spending it and allowing the Feds to collect it directly, it probably could not have used the federally-mandated spending exception.) > The issue is in the end, the $18.5 billion will all be paid off. It's still an extra $18.5 billion being paid that would not have been paid otherwise, if CA had been more responsible. Sure, if the state had had the foresight to prepare its systems for a once-in-ever event in advance, the costs that ended up needing paid back might not have been incurred. I will respect this criticism somewhat if you can point me to the people making it advocating the necessary changes in advance of the need, otherwise...

fxd123 3y ago
> had the foresight to prepare its systems for a once-in-ever event in advance As I already said, which you ignored: "California received $15.3 billion in federal Coronavirus Relief Funds, but allocated none of it to repaying its outstanding loans." > I will respect this criticism somewhat if you can point me to the people making it advocating the necessary changes in advance of the need Here is a WSJ article criticizing CA's choice to not use reliefs funds to pay the loans: https://www.wsj.com/articles/democratic-led-states-let-their-federal-unemployment-debts-linger-11657531801 https://www.wsj.com/articles/democratic-led-states-let-their... But it really does not matter, since your mind is already made up and you are being disingenuous.