Jobless Benefits About To Lapse As Senate Dems Mull Strategy

WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats are discussing their strategy for reauthorizing extended unemployment insurance on Tuesday as the expiration date for the jobless aid is fast approaching.

Neither the House nor the Senate will be in session next week, aides say, so extended unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless will need to be reauthorized this week before they expire on Nov. 30.

Two million people could prematurely lose their benefits by New Year's Day, according to the National Employment Law Project. Currently five million people are receiving aid under two federally-funded programs for the long-term unemployed.

Yet no clear path forward has emerged in Congress for reauthorizing those programs. Aides have floated the idea of coupling the benefits with a reauthorization of the expiring Bush-era tax cuts for the top two percent of earners.

"I support extending unemployment benefits whichever way we can do it," Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) told HuffPost before heading into a weekly caucus lunch with other Democrats.

Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat who sided with Republicans when they blocked the previous reauthorization for nearly two months this summer, said he doesn't love the tax cut deal.

"That's a mistake," said Nelson, who has joined the GOP in opposing the extended benefits unless their deficit impact is offset with spending cuts. "Unless unemployment is paid for, I can't support it."

(Nelson and Republicans do not insist on offsetting the deficit impact of tax cuts for the rich, estimated to be near $700 billion. The progressive Economic Policy Institute puts the cost of a full year's worth of extended unemployment benefits at $65 billion.)

"I think what we want to do is not give $700 billion in tax breaks to the richest people in this country and cut back on the needs of Americans who are really really hurting," said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) before meeting with his colleagues. "I'm walking into the room, those are the things I'm going to fight for."

A lobbyist who has been pushing for a year-long reauthorization said Democratic leadership sees tying unemployment to the tax cuts as an effective strategy. "Leadership is very aware of the beautiful symmetry of tax cuts for millionaires doesn't need to be offset but $293 a week for the long-term unemployed does."

Aides have said it's not likely a deal on unemployment will be sorted out this week, meaning a lapse is highly likely. It would be the fourth lapse in a year. People who missed checks during the previous lapses were paid retroactively when Congress got the job done.

The programs needing reauthorization kick in after a layoff victim's initial six months of state benefits are exhausted. If the benefits lapse, people whose state benefits end after Nov. 30 will be ineligible for the additional 73 weeks of benefits granted to people laid off closer to the beginning of the recession.

State workforce agencies have made it through some of briefer lapses without a major interruption in benefits, but NELP estimates that this time, 800,000 people in the federally-funded "Extended Benefits" program, which offers 13 or 20 weeks, depending on the state, will almost immediately stop receiving checks when the program expires.

People receiving benefits in any of the four "tiers" of federally-funded "Emergency Unemployment Compensation," which provides up to 53 weeks of aid, will be unable to move to the next tier or to EB once their current tier expires.

HuffPost readers: Would you be affected by a lapse? Tell us about it -- email [e-mail].

Comments

[Mike Keough]

12:53 PM on 11/18/2010

Pathetic. The Democrats seem to have no idea about how to push for an extension of benefits, whatsoever. I live in an incredibly Democratic State, and an even more incredibly Democratic City, and have yet to read an article, or OpEd piece from our State Senators, Congressional Representatives, Mayors, Governor... anyone, about what will happen without an extension. It is like they just live inn a vacuum. I cannot believe that all of the Republican Senators and Reps come from places where unemployment is low, where people are not hurting like crazy. Are the Democrats screaming and hitting the media with how important this is? But I don't read anywhere where the media blitz is occurring. Just who is the head of Communication for the Dems? That person needs a stern lecture and to get people out there screaming. We are far beyond the need for mulling, and need a bit of screaming.

[realitybaby]

11:55 AM on 11/18/2010

u have over 261 millionaires in Congres on both sides - asking them to to vote on that tax cut for the rich POSES A CONFLICT OF INTEREST doncha think?

[WmBlackstone]

02:40 AM on 11/18/2010

I find it fascinating that the same people who continue to rant and rave about the threat of socialism are the same people who want government handouts despite the fact that they are now not contributing to the work force and are a drain on the economy. But then people seem to get lost in their own dichotomies "Leave me alone, but give me free money." "I cheat on my taxes, but I want more government money." "Lower the national debt, but give me money now."

Extending jobless benefits is a lose-lose situation because it is exactly "the welfare state" these same people decry constantly. Face it, the vast majority of these jobs were not "lost", they were thrown away by people who contributed the least to the work force, did not make the extra effort to their employers, and continue to whine that "they wuz robbed!" Maybe so, but it was a self-mugging by an ignorant, smug, "we're entitled" group of people who will not face reality. Oh, I agree, there were a few innocents caught up in the net (who refused to see the handwriting on the wall), but nevertheless the majority fit the "unemployable" mold to a T.

What we (society) "owe" to society's misfits is not a false dignity that they are "valued" until they contribute to that value with more than fist-shaking indignation and whining. You don't have a job? Then volunteer in your community to help others.

[Mike Keough]

01:01 PM on 11/18/2010

Gee, for some reason... and I think it might be a lack of donations, many of the places where people used to volunteer, ad closed with their doors shut. In California there are about a million carpenters, electricians, plumbers, architect, engineers, building inspectors, all laid off. But I guess that these people who are not working were not building in a manner which was truly productive, they were just waiting for welfare. Misfits with a weekly paycheck. And no I do not agree that these jobs were thrown away. They were ripped out of the hands of the workers. You cannot see the trees. You are too busy blaming the victims. Why don't you write about Wall Street or investment bankers. You know, the innocents who lost some of their bonuses.

[JShankel]

08:53 PM on 11/17/2010

Extending these benefits is the LEAST EXPENSIVE way to deal with the unemployment crisis while it is still going on.

The problem is not that 15 million people suddenly had a massive simultaneous failure of personal responsibility or all just got unlucky on the same day.  There are systemic systemic reasons we have high unemployment.  Unless and until those problems are addressed, there's no solution to this problem and cutting off these benefits only makes things worse.

So if you're so worried about the poor taxpayer...and you should be...you'd think you'd want to do the thing that is actually less expensive instead of the thing that makes you feel morally superior.  Just a thought.

Cutting off the unemployed creates more foreclosures, more loss of jobs and you still have the original unemployed people you've cut off who annoying don't just vanish.  Extending their benefits saves the taxpayer money compared against dealing with the fallout of cutting people loose.

But I know.  I know.  Why should they get MY blah blah blah and why should I have to pay for their yadda yadda yadda.  So look at it another way.

You're all such big fans of tax cuts are you?  Well, unemployment benefits are tax cuts, you'll be surprised to know.

Wait!  No!  It's SPENDING!  And SPENDING IS BAD!

Unemployment insurance is paid for by payroll taxes.  So long as unemployment is low, the government collects a lot of payroll taxes and pays out very little in benefits, yes?  That's bad!  Taxes high!

But when unemployment is high, the government collects fewer payroll taxes (tax cut) and gives back the money the stole evilly and illegally through the evil communist socialist taxation that they have no right to do because of MINE MINE MINE and they give that money back to  the people who paid the taxes in the first place.  Hooray!  Taxes bad!  Refund good!

Or whatever you want.  Bottom line is it will cost the taxpayers MORE to cut off these benefits.  Naturally, we can't continue like this indefinitely, and the overages should be made up from future payroll tax increases.  But there is no inexpensive way to have 10% unemployment.  Humans cost money to operate.  If more than 5% of us are unemployed, that's expensive whether you pay in the form of UI or other services or just, you know, human misery starvation and death in the streets.

So, tax cut.  What's the problem?  Even with this extension, the gubmint has still collected WAY MORE in premiums over the years than they've put out, so there's plenty more tax to cut.

[Cranmer1549]

03:24 PM on 11/17/2010

"Nelson and Republicans do not insist on offsetting the deficit impact of tax cuts for the rich, estimated to be near $700 billion."

That's the key. Policies that help the rich don't have to be budgeted for.

[wkillpatri]

01:22 PM on 11/17/2010

ATTN: PROGRESSIVES -- Time to let the majority decide what's best.
ATTN: CONSERVATIVES & T. PARTY -- Hooray for telling it like it is.

ATTN: AMERICANS -- Everyone learns in different ways. Some folks learn by application of academic theory. Others learn in a more hands-on way called "experiential immersion." Both ways of learning are effective, however, since Obamademics aren't working, we need the full experiential model to dominate now.

Cut taxes. End all entitlements. Privatize SS. Enforce existing laws, e.g., submit form I-9 for EVERY employee to end illegal immigration. Eliminate wasteful Fed agencies, e.g., FDA, EPA and let markets eliminate tainted food and drugs. Tax or charge only those who use federally subsidized facilities, e.g., interstate highways, airports, national parks, sports stadiums, emergency rooms, schools. Reinstate the draft. Convict elected officials of all crimes. Eliminate welfare, food stamps, Medicaid and tax deductions, including mortgage and tax credits for dependents. Let's see REAL, unvarnished, unequivocal equality enforced in its black & white, no-exceptions glory. Put Palin/Beck in the White House for 4 years and see how it goes.

When we've seen what happens under populist rule, we can answer the question, "How's that working?" It may be painful. But only then will we be able to debate what it means to be an American.

Those who learn from application of theory will survive, possibly thrive. And it will be fascinating to hear what conservative leaders say in 2016.

[JoeBlough]

03:08 PM on 11/17/2010

Privatizing SS would be a losing money pit. Better to do away with it and let the public keep its money up front.

[lylo]

09:38 PM on 11/17/2010

Why would you want to privatize SS? Give me a reason, please.

[Raccoon1]

01:11 PM on 11/17/2010

Money for working people is a 'handout', while money for corporations is a subsidy?

[sarabono]

12:55 PM on 11/17/2010

RePubs don't take the House tell Jan. 2011

The extension of the benefits is the responsibility of the Lame Duck Democrat Congress.

If they are not extended, then fault the Democrat Leaders in both the House and Senate.

[Raccoon1]

01:12 PM on 11/17/2010

Even if the Republicans vote it down or delay it or whatever other parlamentary trick they can pull to stop it?

[MeinNH]

10:12 AM on 11/17/2010

What is there to mull...millions unemployed with no jobs in sight!

[DSOTM]

12:25 PM on 11/17/2010

That is the GOP plan, make it so bad that they will take the White House in 2012.

[Dellany Hall]

12:29 PM on 11/17/2010

I think that is exactly what they intend to do, throw us under the bus now so everybody will get pissed at Obama then take it out on Obama in 2012. We all need to remember this in 2012 but they count on the American people to forget which is usually what they do as in (forget).

[Raccoon1]

01:15 PM on 11/17/2010

We're rapidly approaching the "shock and awe" as laid out by Neo-Cons years ago. Shock and Awe was an economic term coined by Neo-Con's even before the Iraq War to describe a situation wherein things get so bad economically that the a people will accept about anything that will seemingly bring back sanity. Naturally, the Neo-Con's will have a solution for us. But, I don't think we're going to like it.

[GonzoFL]

09:45 AM on 11/17/2010

Thanks Arthur for keeping the plight of the unemployed in the main stream media.

[JoeBlough]

02:52 AM on 11/17/2010

I thought the House Tea Party was against unemployment benefits? Wasn't it their mandate to get rid of unemployment benefits?

[sarabono]

12:52 PM on 11/17/2010

Pub's don't take the House tell Jan. 2011

Extension of the benefits is a Dem decision.

[MrBadExample]

02:00 AM on 11/17/2010

It's important to note here that our European counterparts have provisions for longer periods of unemployment;

http://www­.ncpa.org/­pub/ba475

More Months of Benefits. A second factor in Europe's high unemployment rates is the long period of time for which benefits are paid. Unemployment insurance benefits in the United States typically are exhausted after six months. However, a number of European countries pay over 40 percent of previous wages in the second and third year of unemployment. A few countries keep the benefits flowing even into the fourth and fifth years of unemployment.
Long eligibility periods encourage workers to delay their job search efforts until their unemployment benefits are about to run out. Note also the one country with a shorter duration of unemployment than ours: In Mexico, dismissed workers are entitled to a lump-sum payment from their former employer, but the worker does not have to remain unemployed to receive this benefit.

Note that UI in Europe covers more since most European countries pick up health-care costs for the unemployed. In the United States, the COBRA is frequently 40% or more of the value of unemployment insurance.

And also, many European countries mandate hiring during recessions. If unemployment reaches a certain rate in, say, The Netherlands, working hours are cut for everyone by 5-10%. Overtime is outlawed--you can't be asked to work beyond your workday, and the government fines businesses who do this. And the goal is to keep as many people on the job as possible. The logic is that it's better if everyone in a firm takes a small haircut than for some group of laid-off workers to be totally dependent on unemployment insurance.

[Rodger leMonde]

12:06 AM on 11/17/2010

All that benefit money goes directly into the economy. Supporting local businesses.

[Rodger leMonde]

11:59 PM on 11/16/2010

How a bout all those Repubs who haven't done jack for two years?

[JoeBlough]

02:53 AM on 11/17/2010

Boehner has retired at full salary, just sitting back and yelling "No!"

[MrBadExample]

02:02 AM on 11/17/2010

IF we'd paid W to not work in the last decade, the economy would be ahead about $13 Trillion dollars.

[Badger33]

11:32 PM on 11/16/2010

We are truly becoming a third world nation: the few who are rich and the rest who provide a pool of easily replaceable cheap labor. Profit has become the ultimate good and more important than people.

[Good Googli Moogli]

11:39 PM on 11/16/2010

seems that way

[baxtron]

09:15 AM on 11/17/2010

You mean more freedom and a stronger nation. Country first.

[Badger33]

02:34 PM on 11/18/2010

As an increasing portion of our citizens slide into poverty, we become stronger? Nonsense.