It sounds good on paper, but personally I’m not buying it. In this case, "it" is a New Jersey proposal that says if the state is going to give you your paycheck, you have to live within its borders.

With our capital’s geographic presence in the middle of the state, I can’t imagine too many are commuting from Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky or Michigan to Indy. But state workers are not confined to the big city. The New Jersey bill would impact teachers, police officers and firefighters as well as all city and county government employees.

There are strong Indiana connections to Cincinnati, Chicago and Louisville in addition to numerous other areas in the four neighboring locales. I grew up in Dearborn County, a lot closer to Cincy than Indy, and a tri-state ingredient seems to be active in all four corners of the state.

The full New Jersey article is here. Below is a quick summary:

State Sen. Donald Norcross (D., Camden), the sponsor of the bill, said, "It is very simple. If you want a paycheck from New Jersey taxpayers, you should have to live here, pay your taxes here and be part of your community."

Norcross, who also leads the 85,000-member South Jersey AFL-CIO Central Labor Council, said an estimated 10,000 public employees live out of state, costing the state about $22 million in income taxes.

"What really gets me is when I look at the mass exodus every night out of Trenton to Pennsylvania," Senate President Stephen Sweeney said. "If it’s good enough to work for the state, it should be good enough to live in the state of New Jersey," he added.

Public employee unions said that while relatively few of their members work out of state, they strongly oppose the measure for those who do.

"I think it’s a ridiculous proposal," said Bob Master, regional political director for the Communication Workers of America. "It will have no meaningful impact in the long run on the state’s budget problems and it will cause completely unnecessary hardship for our members."

Master said that if New Jersey’s neighboring states were to adopt similar tactics, the results would not be pretty.

Debates over funding for public broadcasting are nothing new. The level of deliberations - and funding cuts - has increased dramatically in recent years, threatening the future existence of public television and radio outlets. Some states are currently being hit harder than others with many (including Indiana) suffering. Stateline writes:

Idaho Public Television already has seen its state funding cut by 61 percent since July 2008, necessitating layoffs, furloughs and the frequent airing of re-runs. The governor’s proposal, according to the agency, would force it to reduce or eliminate most of its local programming—and cease serving many rural parts of the state altogether.

"We’ve had to take a look at everything we’re doing in state government and asking the question, why?” Jon Hanian, a spokesman for (Gov. Butch) Otter, says of the proposal. “We’re looking at everything and asking, ‘Is this or is this not a proper role of government?’ We’re also differentiating between things that we’ve started doing because it’s nice and things that we must do because it’s necessary."

The challenges that Idaho Public Television is facing are emblematic of the decisions that public television agencies and stations around the country will have to make if states decide that public television is no longer a business they can afford to be in. According to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), state and local funding for public television stations nationwide declined by $36 million between 2008 and 2009. CPB forecasts an additional $45 to $49 million in state and local cuts for the upcoming fiscal year.

States have cut back on funding during previous economic downturns, says Mark Erstling, a senior vice president at CPB, but this downturn poses a new threat. "The revenue sources always made up the difference,” he says. “This time around, everything is basically down."  Total non-federal sources of revenue, including member donations and corporate underwriting, declined by $200 million from 2008 to 2009. CPB is concerned that member donations may begin to decline more sharply, as they tend to be the last source of public broadcasting revenue to drop during economic downturns.

Jobs are — or should be — the number one priority as economic recovery (in that sense) remains elusive. For those currently without jobs, however, how much unemployment compensation is too much? It’s a tricky question, but one that is starting to be asked by more than a few people.

The unemployment comp program, created during the Depression as a temporary aid for laid-off workers, is now termed by some as an "expensive entitlement." While those out of work once received six months of payments, that has now surged to as high as 99 weeks in some states. Half of the more than 11 million unemployed have been jobless for longer than six months.

This is a downturn unlike any other since the program was created and many of those jobs will likely not come back. And while the vast majority are very likely doing all they can to find meaningful employment in the effort to return to their previous lifestyle, nearly two years of unemployment benefits has also undoubtedly led some to adopt the option of "let the government pay the tab" for awhile.

Few seemingly agreed with Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning’s recent filibuster that delayed the latest unemployment benefits extension (he wanted Washington to find a way to pay for it), but his logic was accepted in some circles. Colleague Jon Kyle of Arizona commented that the continued benefits are a "disincentive for people to seek new work" and that no one can argue that the current system is a "job enhancer."

Employers pay the bill through taxes in nearly all states (a few require worker contributions). Benefits have been extended before, but rolled back when the unemployment rate declined. That decline is proving difficult to achieve this time around.

A Washington Post article this week included the following:

"It is appropriate and natural for Congress to extend the time limit of unemployment insurance with the job market as bad as it is," said James Sherk, a labor economist at the Heritage Foundation. "But by quadrupling it, it is no longer an unemployment insurance program but a welfare program."

Phillip L. Swagel, a former Treasury Department official who is now a business professor at Georgetown University, said that some people might take longer to find a new job as a result of unemployment insurance extensions, but that right now it’s a needed benefit.

"The reality is that it’s hard to find a job even for people who really want one," he said.

But as the job market improves, Swagel said, unemployment insurance extensions must be pared back quickly, as they have been in previous downturns. "It’s important to let the extensions lapse as the job market recovers — to avoid having disincentives to work once the job market is better," Swagel said.

Part of the question is timing. For a program that is currently costing $10 billion a month, that’s something that needs answered sooner rather than later.

The Christian Science Monitor addressed why Americans are so angry in an article today. Perhaps I’m more aware of it now, or maybe it’s just the popularity of pundit-laden, agenda-driven cable news networks, but it certainly does seem like we Yankees are pretty fired up. At what? Well, take your pick: The government, other Americans who (gasp!) have opinions contrary to ours, or even our local nugget-less McDonald’s. Although, believe it or not, it does seem we were even angrier in the early 1990s, at least according to prior surveys:

So what does this all add up to? Are we "mad as hell," like TV anchor Howard Beale ranting to viewers in the 1976 Hollywood classic "Network"? Is today’s real-life incarnation, Glenn Beck of Fox News, whipping us into a frenzy of revolt against Washington?

Not necessarily. Pollster Scott Rasmussen reports that 75 percent of Americans are "angry," but his question is framed solely around anger: "How angry are you at the current policies of the federal government?" Forty-five percent replied "very angry" and 30 percent said "somewhat angry."

But when Americans are given a choice of "angry," "dissatisfied," "satisfied," or "enthusiastic" about the way the federal government works, "dissatisfied" is the most popular choice at 48 percent, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll. An additional 19 percent chose "angry."

This net negative of 67 percent doesn’t come close to the same poll’s finding in October 1992, during the last time of political turmoil over fiscal policy. Then, 25 percent of Americans were angry, and 56 percent were dissatisfied, per ABC. A month later, third-party presidential candidate Ross Perot won 19 percent of the vote and cost President George H.W. Bush a second term.

In 1992, unemployment had peaked at 7.8 percent – well below today’s level – and yet voters then were angrier than they are today. So it’s not just about unemployment. "Consider also the duration of the downturn, the tenure of the administration, the level of effort, the sense of empathy, and other atmospherics," says Gary Langer, director of polling for ABC News.

Obama emerged from his post-inaugural honeymoon long ago, but he’s still only 13 months in office. If the public remains unhappy with the economy and with his administration’s recovery efforts, anger could rise. As things stand today, the Democrats already could lose well more than 24 House seats this November, the post-World War II average loss for the president’s party in midterm elections.

For now, the angriest bloc of voters is conservatives, at 32 percent, according to ABC. Ten percent of liberals and 12 percent of moderates are angry. Higher levels of anger and declines in job approval for Obama could point to greater-than-average losses in November, potentially even the loss of Democratic control on Capitol Hill. Nonpartisan political handicapper Charlie Cook already predicts the Democrats will lose the House.

I also thought this passage was quite noteworthy:

There’s also disaffection among moderates, frustrated by the high degree of political polarization that leaves little room for compromise on major policy matters. But efforts in the last decade to build a "radical middle" movement – a drive to marry the best ideas of the right and left – seem to have faded.

The stunning decision by Sen. Evan Bayh (D) of Indiana, one of the Senate’s few moderates, not to run for reelection cast the hollowing-out of the middle in sharp relief.

Chamber President Kevin Brinegar recently appeared on Inside INdiana Business discussing a potential delay in the unemployment insurance fund tax increase.

The President of the Indiana Chamber of Commerce is "cautiously optimistic" a deal will be reached to delay a tax increase on businesses to support the state’s bankrupt unemployment insurance fund. Kevin Brinegar believes a two-year delay in implementation is the most likely scenario. He says there are still some "differing views" that need to be worked out, including issues such as higher benefit levels, automatic benefit increases and paid family and medical leave…

Brinegar says the unemployment insurance system is not designed to fund family and medical leave.

He says a two year delay would provide time to see what Congress will do to deal with the issue because several states are dealing with dwindling unemployment insurance funds, which is part of a national program.

Brinegar also says the chamber is "very disappointed" a bill allowing employees to keep guns locked in their vehicles parked on company property has gone to the governor’s desk.

He says the chamber is also monitoring a tax proposal that would give companies more time to file amended personal property tax returns on their business machinery and equipment.

New York Times columnist Ross Douthat has joined the chorus of those singing the praise of Mitch Daniels. Though the Governor is still rather ambivalent about running for President in 2012, many in the national punditocracy are urging him to run:

Mitt Romney? He couldn’t make the voters like him last time … Sarah Palin? She’d lose 47 states … Mike Huckabee? Better as a talk-show host … Tim Pawlenty, Jim DeMint, Bobby Jindal, David Petraeus? Too blah, too extreme, too green, and stop dreaming …

But murmur the name Mitch Daniels, and everyone perks up a bit. Would he win? Maybe not. But he’d be the best president of any of them …

“I’ve never seen a president of the United States when I look in the mirror,” Daniels remarked last week, after officially inching the door ajar for 2012. You can’t blame him: At 5’7”, the Indiana governor wouldn’t be the tallest man to occupy the White House, and he’d be the baldest president since Dwight D. Eisenhower. If Romney looks like central casting’s idea of a chief executive, Daniels resembles the character actor who plays the director of the Office of Management and Budget — a title that he held, as it happens, during George W. Bush’s first term.

Since then, though, he’s become America’s best governor. In a just world, Daniels’s record would make him the Tea Party movement’s favorite politician. During the fat years of the mid-2000s, while most governors went on spending sprees, he was trimming Indiana’s payroll, slowing the state government’s growth, and turning a $800 million deficit into a consistent surplus. Now that times are hard, his fiscal rigor is paying off: the state’s projected budget shortfall for 2011, as a percentage of the budget, is the third-lowest in the country.

Tuesday morning at the Indiana Statehouse was a good time for catchy phrases. Whether the rest of the week will see substantive legislative action is yet to be seen.

House Speaker Pat Bauer has reconfirmed his plan to adjourn this session by the end of Thursday (10 days before the March 14 deadline date for such action). His closing words to House members (before calling for a recess until 2:30 today) as he urged them to work diligently on conference committees: "If you can make an agreement, so be it; if you can’t make an agreement, so be it."

Prior to that, House Minority Leader Brian Bosma said his caucus was not opposed to a Thursday ending as long as all the needed business was taken care of. He cited five priorities, led by a clean and clear delay in the unemployment insurance tax increase, that would thwart the "go home early" plan. His final comment: "It’s better to be a little slow and right than quick and wrong."

The Senate has not publicly weighed in today (it has a light calendar with a 1:30 beginning), although President Pro Tem David Long has previously stated there is nothing wrong with an early ending, but not before key issues are addressed.

The real work is taking place in conference committees and in negotiations among leadership. Stay tuned for the outcomes.