In case you somehow didn't notice, we're still in the midst of a crippling recession, and the official unemployment rate is still floating dangerously close to the double digit mark. With the holiday season quickly approaching, you'd think that the fine folks on Capitol Hill would put partisan bickering aside for awhile and ensure that those without jobs would be adequately taken care of in this time of need. But nope, as usual, we're looking at yet another protracted ideological battle over tax cuts and unemployment benefits:
The House of Representatives on Thursday voted down a measure that would have reauthorized extended unemployment insurance for another three months, leaving no clear path forward to prevent the benefits from lapsing as scheduled on Nov. 30.
Without a reauthorization, the Labor Department estimates that two million long-term unemployed will prematurely stop receiving benefits before the end of the year.
The bill was brought to the floor under a "suspension of the rules," meaning it required approval from two-thirds of the House. It failed 258 to 154, with mostly Democratic support. Twenty-one Republicans voted in favor and 11 Democrats voted nay.
Even if it had passed the House, it's unclear how it would get through the Senate, where Democrats will need at least three Republicans to switch sides. No GOP moderates have signaled a willingness to support an unemployment reauthorization that isn't "paid for" with spending cuts -- something Democrats have refused to do all year. In most recessions, the cost of federally-funded jobless aid is usually paid for with deficit spending.
It's likely there will be another effort in Congress to reauthorize the benefits before the Christmas break, though lawmakers will be off next week for Thanksgiving.
Read that final sentence again. "Lawmakers will be off next week for Thanksgiving."
So, instead of working on some compromise to ensure that people collecting unemployment can sleep a bit easier this holiday season, Congress just says "eff' it" and heads home. Lovely. Pass the stuffing.
I should make it clear where I stand here. When you're in a time of dire economic need, it's probably okay to not worry about the debt for awhile. If you're faced with the choice of having no heat, or getting a cash advance on your credit card to pay Con Edison, I'd think the choice would be rather simple. Millions of out-of-work Americans aren't thinking about a freakin' deficit right now, they're thinking about how to pay their rent next month to avoid being on the street come Christmas. And therein lies the difference between the two parties.
Since the GOP is so worried about fiscal responsibility all of a sudden, how about these guys forfeit their annual salaries and live off the mere pittance of the typical $300/week benefit that most of those on unemployment receive a week? I'm willing to bet they'd change their tune on this topic rather quickly.
Related:
+Black Friday Deals: Two Black Friday Deals You Must Avoid
+You'll Get No Gift From Me: An End to Fear-Based Holiday Giving
Then again, maybe not. A recent study revealed that the median wealth of members of Congress was around $750,000, and that about half of those currently serving in Congress are millionaires. I suppose that explains the insistence on keeping those Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in place. And it probably also explains the resistance to extending unemployment benefits. After all, if I've got a cool million in the bank, I'm probably not gonna sweat losing a measly $300 a week either.
If the GOP framed this as a substantive debate about just how long a person should be able to draw unemployment benefits before they're no longer eligible, that might make their argument a bit more palatable. But by claiming this is somehow about the deficit and "personal responsibility" -- when these very same people want to add $700 million to that deficit via tax cuts for the wealthy (aka: them) -- I can't categorize this as anything but politics as usual.
Question: How long should a person be allowed to collect unemployment benefits before they're cut off?
Jay Anderson is a freelance writer from Washington, DC, whose work has been featured in the Washington Post and on NPR. When he's not busy talking smack here, he runs the award-winning blog AverageBro.com. Follow him via Twitter @AverageBro.


Comments: (43)
Add a comment
By: LovelyJade22 on 11/19/2010 2:27PM
Collecting unemployment means you were dismissed or laid off through no fault of your own right? So why can't the government force these companies to rehire employees who are unfairly released from employment?
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: djkut on 11/19/2010 2:56PM
Damn !!! @Lovely Jade22 that is a very good idea that will separate some BS that goes on in these companies. If they are doing some illegal practice and letting people go by so call laying them off. It be would be great to see that smile could be smirked off their face when they see that employee coming back that they thought they got rid of especially if he/she was a decent employee.
Report This
By: K Mac on 11/19/2010 4:13PM
In a perfect world, that could make sense. But considering the companies laid off people for economic reasons, I don't see how they could be forced to hire people back. Plus, how many people are out of work because their businesses closed their doors or moved operations overseas?
Plus some people just suck at their job and get fired. Why should the companies be forced to rehire them?
Back in the day, you used to have to prove that you were looking for work. That is no longer, in PA at least. I think things would change if you had to report to someone how many resumes you sent out and to who.
Report This
By: LovelyJade22 on 11/19/2010 5:07PM
@K Mac
These employers are not hurting as much as they'd like the public to believe.
Report This
By: Rick on 11/20/2010 3:12AM
I believe a person should be able to collect unemployment for as long as thay have paid in to the system.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: pimpinperry2 on 11/19/2010 3:15PM
Yo Rick...Where on your paycheck do you see a dedcution for unemployment insurance? This is another example of how misinformed black people are.
Your employer pays 1/2 of our social security payments and 100% of the unemployment insurance along with health insurance. That's why employees salaries are considered the largest expense a company takes on and why employees are let go.
Report This
By: eeduj1001 on 11/19/2010 3:35PM
@pimpinperry2
But they get tax cuts and they get bail outs and golden parachutes and a dream defense team (eg., corporations, and Congressmen to lobby for their interests.
Report This
By: K Mac on 11/19/2010 4:32PM
It's unlikely that people who file unemployment claims have paid a fraction in to unemployment what they have been paid out of it.
Here in PA, we have to pay a small amount of our pay to the UC fund, less than .1%. (If you make $1000 a week, you'd pay less than $1 a week in PAUC.) This is up from what it used to be, but say it has been implemented for the past 40 years (which it hasn't). If you made $52,000 a year, you'd contribute about $1 a week or $52 a year. If you worked for 40 years, you would have paid over that time a whopping $2080 into the unemployment system.
Report This
By: Sandi on 11/20/2010 11:01PM
DO YOU READ? WORKERS DO NOT, I REPEAT DO NOT PAY INTO THE SYSTEM. IT IS PAID FOR BY EMPLOYERS.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Report This
By: Rhonda on 12/19/2010 7:56PM
Employees may not physically pay out of their checks for unemployment but employers consider that cost to them when determining salaries. It is part of your employee benefits package and your over all salary.... So it is fair to consider that you have paid into the system.
I've been unemployed basically 2 years. I've sent resumes to many types of jobs. Apparently I'm overqualified. Thats just not fair! There are not many jobs to go around and then some jerk is going to look at how hard you worked to climb the ladder and determine that you don't qualify for their job. Never mind that those high paying jobs are gone and that you would actually excel at those lower paying jobs. It makes no sense for employers to punish people who worked hard by declaring them over qualified.
I receive those emails all the time... However they don't declare you "over qualified" but rather not qualified. However I always apply to jobs that I have done in the past and moved up from. I am so well versed in those lower paying jobs and my resume shows it and a call to my employers and bosses would tell them that I could run circles around all the tasks that would encompass the admin jobss... I think that employers who turn people down for being "over qualified" should have to pay higher fees into the UE until this recession is over... I bet then I'd get a job...
Report This