From staff reports
news@joplinglobe.co
—
The Aug. 3 primary will mark the first time Eli Yokley, 18, will be eligible to vote.
But the Webb City resident is no novice to politics. Yokley began his own online news source “The Fuse Joplin” about a year ago. He reports on a variety of meetings and issues, but most recently he’s devoted much of his attention to local politics.
Last week, Yokley posed a question about extending jobless benefits before Congress voted on the bill. President Barack Obama signed legislation extending unemployment benefits Thursday for 2.5 million jobless Americans. The House voted 272-152 earlier in the day to extend unemployment insurance through November for those who have not exhausted up to 99 weeks of aid. The payments are retroactive to late May. Republicans had stalled the $33.9 billion package for weeks, arguing that aid should be paid by making cuts elsewhere. Democrats have maintained that jobless benefits are emergency spending that traditionally have not been offset.
Yokley said he wanted to see the contrast between what the candidates would do and what actually happened with the legislation.
“Many of those who read my website are younger. They are just getting out of college. They worry about the high unemployment rate. They want to know how the candidates will react if on down the line they were out of jobs and needed benefits to be extended,” said Yokley, who graduated from Webb City High School and whose future plan is to attend law school.
Ten candidates are running to fill the vacancy created when U.S. Rep. Roy Blunt decided to seek the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Christopher “Kit” Bond. Eight Republicans and two Democrats are listed on the Aug. 3 primary ballot.
GOP contenders, listed in ballot order, are Jeff Wisdom, Springfield, an economics professor at Ozarks Technical Community College; Gary Nodler, Joplin, a state senator; Michael Moon, Ash Grove, a farmer and employee of St. John’s Medical Center; Darrell L. Moore, Springfield, Greene County prosecuting attorney; Jack Goodman, Mount Vernon, a state senator; Billy Long, Springfield, an auctioneer and real estate agent; Michael Wardell, Nixa, a businessman and retired U.S. Marine; and Steve Hunter, Joplin, a former state representative.
Democratic candidates are Tim Davis, Branson, an attorney and economist; and Scott Eckersley, Kimberling City, a lawyer who sued his former boss, then-Gov. Matt Blunt, after he was fired when he said the office broke the law by refusing to release e-mails to the press.
The questions asked by Yokley were: Would you favor the federal government further extending unemployment benefits? If not, do you believe that states should take on an additional responsibility?
Jeff Wisdom
I would not vote to extend unemployment benefits. Overwhelming numbers of individuals are hurting due to job loss, including my own family. My heart goes out to them. Yet, the reality is all levels of government are vastly overextended. Placing a greater burden on taxpayers now is unfeasible. Unemployment benefits do virtually nothing to improve job markets. As an alternative, the federal government should implement a one-year moratorium on all income and payroll taxes to encourage job creation, specifically in small businesses. More jobs will facilitate consumer spending and economic recovery. Putting people back to work must be our focus.
Gary Nodler
I would favor an extension only if it does not incur any additional debt. Any extension should be paired with a concurrent cut in spending. One proposal put forward by Republicans is to pay for any extension of unemployment benefits with unexpended stimulus funds. I would be willing to consider this alternative. I am not in favor of shifting the cost burden to the state of Missouri. The state faces difficult enough fiscal challenges without accepting another unfunded liability from the federal government that could plunge Missouri into the kind of crisis that most other states now face.
Mike Moon
The authority and responsibility of the federal government is limited to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and unemployment benefits is not one of them. The federal government could positively affect the “creation” of jobs in the private sector by reducing taxes on individuals and companies and eliminating unnecessary regulation. HR25, the Fair Tax, is a bill that will do just that. When companies are allowed the freedom to produce products without government interference, they will return to American soil and rehire those who have been laid off. That’s the solution we should be aiming for.
Darrell Moore
As a general proposition, it is bad public policy to extend benefits to 99 weeks. As I have stated before, the federal government should have focused its energy on true job creation measures instead of passing divisive health insurance reform and financial bailouts for Wall Street banks. Real people have lost jobs and are hurting. While unemployment benefits are needed for the short term to help people retrain and find jobs, the best long term help is creation of private sector jobs. The states are in no financial position to pick up greater responsibility.
Jack Goodman
The federal government should have figured out how to pay the $34 billion price tag to extend these benefits before they did it. People need jobs now, not more government spending. We must stop this flawed logic of government spending to stimulate the economy and pursue a real job creation by setting the right environment for people to create more jobs. To get families back to work, we must make the Bush-era tax cuts permanent, stop the threat of increased taxes and regulation like the new health care takeover, cap and trade, and recent takeover of the financial marketplace.
Billy Long
I think the American people are fed up with big government solutions to every problem. I would not be in favor of the federal government or state government extending unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits are to bridge the gap between unexpected job loss and new employment. If unemployment benefits are extended indefinitely we risk turning an insurance program into a welfare program that encourages people not to work and creates government dependency. The way to create jobs is less government spending, not more. Other safety net programs that exist will secure those who cannot find work.
Michael Wardell
Constitutionally, the federal government has no business getting involved in this issue. Realistically I can see extending the benefits with some strings attached. It must be a pay-as-you-go expenditure where cuts would be made somewhere else in the budget to pay for it. The first place is cutting anyone in the civil service who make in excess of $100,000 by 10 percent, and perhaps after a period of time, requiring those who can’t find work to agree to some form of community service similar to AmeriCorps, but locally.
Steve Hunter
No! States have no money to take on unemployment responsibility.
Tim Davis
There is potential for abuse with any welfare program as well as the risk of fostering a culture of dependence. That said, I am sympathetic to American workers who have found themselves unemployed, however diligent they may be, because the private sector is not creating enough jobs to attain full employment. I would extend jobless benefits, because I fault government intervention, not unemployed workers, for the current high rate of unemployment.
Scott Eckersley
First, using the unemployment benefit extension and the long-term unemployed for political theater is wrong. I am relieved the issue was resolved this week but even so, we face serious challenges to our economic stability when millions of Americans remain out of work. Job creation in the private sector has slowly begun to increase, but thus far has not been sufficient to put enough of our neighbors back to work. I stand for responsible and responsive government and public policies for individuals and for employers.
