South Carolina Unemployment Benefits: State May Be Next To Slash Jobless Aid

Following the example set by four other states, South Carolina lawmakers want to slash benefits for the jobless.

The South Carolina State Senate gave preliminary approval last week to a bill that would reduce state unemployment benefits from 26 weeks to 20 weeks while simultaneously cutting unemployment surtaxes for businesses. In recent months Michigan and Missouri cut benefits to 20 weeks, and Florida and Arkansas have slashed aid as well. Those reductions served as models for South Carolina, where the idea to decrease the number of benefits popped up in the last few weeks.

"I think 20 weeks is a good balance," State Sen. Kevin Bryant (R), a proponent of the measure, told HuffPost. "We did see where other states had done that."

The bill also pays back $100 million borrowed from the federal government's unemployment trust fund. Thirty states owe the federal government a total of $43.8 billion for unemployment loans, according to the Labor Department. Higher federal taxes can automatically kick in for states that owe the feds for two years in a row. Like the other states that have cut aid, lawmakers in South Carolina say it's time to close budget gaps and coddle business instead of the jobless.

"If we can pay down the debt, that will lead to an unemployment tax cut," Bryant said. "We believe that will help [businesses'] ability to hire."

It's not just about the budget and taxes, however. "I’ve got several employers that will tell me they’ve had lots of people tell them, 'You know, I can’t take this job because I’ll lose my unemployment benefits,'" Bryant said. "We’ve got to find ways to stop paying people to stay home."

South Carolina has a 9.9 percent unemployment rate.

Last week, Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives moved legislation that would allow states to use federal unemployment money for debt payments instead of checks for the jobless.

States traditionally pay the first 26 weeks of benefits, and Congress provides extra weeks during recessions. Currently, the federal government gives the jobless up to 73 weeks of extra benefits in states with high unemployment. Because the extra benefits are based on the duration of state benefits, cutting the state aid will result in a reduction of the federal benefits as well. Bryant said the jobless would be eligible for about 70 weeks of total assistance if the bill becomes law. The changes would take effect immediately.

So far, Democrats support the Republican measure, which won unanimous preliminary approval last week.

"As hard as it was for me to vote for that, I thought we needed somehow to balance our system down here so we could pay back the money we withdrew during the Great Recession," State Sen. John Land (D) said. “Normally, I’m in the corner of the working people, and I hated to do it, but I thought with all the facts I had...at that particular point in time I was willing to do the appropriation, and the next step is we will debate the terms and I might have a change of heart."

Land lamented that the legislature cut unemployment taxes for businesses when South Carolina's unemployment trust fund ran a surplus a decade ago and didn't increase revenue before the fund started running dry in 2008. "We had such good employment that the trust fund was just bulging with money and we could give the businesses a cut," he said. "But then when the system started paying out more than it was taking in...we did not up the rate we were charging employers."

Darrell Scott, vice president of public policy for the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce, said he is "cautiously optimistic" the legislature will pass the bill before adjourning on June 2.

Sue Berkowitz, director of the S.C. Appleseed Legal Justice Center, a nonprofit that advocates on behalf of poor people, opposes the measure and said she's afraid it will pass, particularly because majority Republicans don't need Democrats' support to get it through both houses of the General Assembly.

"There are other ways to raise revenue in the state that they’re totally unwilling to look at," she said. "It’s very disappointing we’re not looking out for the regular people of South Carolina."

Comments

[SHAR-PIE]

11:09 AM on 05/19/2011

to kerry1962- Im not lying- unemployment in SC $242.0 per week- I pay well- I believe in more than a living wage! Im a NYer & believe in paying well to keep a good employee gas was $3.39 per gallon- I happen to be in an area where the locals dont want to work- they think they should make $25.00 hr & do nothing in return-- businesses in my area have had to shut down due to employee theft- last guy I hired was making $14.00 an hour & not putting parts back on a vehicle when he was done- so wtf ! other business pay about $8.00 hr for the same work! so all you people should stop judging everyone by your own work ethics - & yes I own my own business puting in 60-70 hrs per week-

[99er2049er]

03:22 PM on 05/18/2011

You already know it's a republican lawmaker who is responsible for this situation. I can't believe lawmakers and an entire party can be this cruel and heartless to victims of a recession, people who lose these jobs by no fault of their own, but rather because of the recession. Yet, republicans want to give billions of tax cuts to the rich, and now want to give a trillion more to the rich (people who have benefited in record amounts from this recession, while the rest of us suffer the worst). And to top it off, the Ryan plan which all republicans support, will kill our medicare, thus putting many hundreds of millions of poor and middle class seniors into poverty.

[Pushing70]

02:51 PM on 05/18/2011

For crying out loud - we are talking 70 weeks of benefits and the liberals are ready to protest.

[99er2049er]

03:23 PM on 05/18/2011

Pushing70, until it happens to you, think before you post! Ebeneezer Scrooge should not be your mentor!

[Pushing70]

03:44 PM on 05/18/2011

Never missed a check since I was 17 - more jobs would be available if the liberals did not push Healthcare reform on us which in turn caused seniors to stay in the job market. Good luck

[Andy49]

01:32 PM on 05/18/2011

In story after story we are seeing the same pattern reduce aid to the needy and move it to debt and don't tax, especially big business or the rich. The Republican playbook in all it's glory.

[99er2049er]

03:24 PM on 05/18/2011

Andy, you are 100% correct. I see the trolls on this board try to spin this differently, but how can you spin it in any other way. Harm the poor and give more to the rich. Anyone see anything morally wrong with the republican way of thinking? Oh, not to mention the economic damage it is causing to our country?

[tosc]

10:50 AM on 05/18/2011

here is a thought....BRING BACK JOBS TO THE U.S. THAT WERE SHIPPED ABROAD!!!! and we can get back to work! How dare politicians, on the citizen's payroll, suggest that americans do not want to work! Let them get layed off and join our ranks, not on the hill, but down here in the trenches! They have bull chestnuts to even open their pompous mouths and utter such stupidity! Americans are a working people! We live to Work! How do they think they get their checks each month? or do they know something we don't?

[99er2049er]

03:26 PM on 05/18/2011

Studies have shown that bringing jobs back to the U.S. improves the quality, turn around time, and often becomes more profitable to organizations. Not to mention one area that all corporations could benefit from by bringing jobs back to the U.S., the incredible PR it will generate. This is free advertising, promoting your company. Imagine you are Dell Computers and you make an announcement that you are moving all your call centers back to the U.S. Imagine how many people will buy your computers and all the free multi-million dollar PR you will get for your company, as news reports continue to discuss what you are doing, tons of articles, tons of commentators, tons of politicians cheering you.

How simple is this? DO IT and DO IT NOW!

[Mister Grumpy]

08:48 PM on 05/17/2011

With our crumbing infrastructure I see no reason for not bringing back the job corps of the 1930's..........

But big business will never allow that to happen...........

[sc29403]

10:33 PM on 05/17/2011

Lord knows the country's infrastructure is in desperate need of repair! Have you seen the new show that does nothing but go around the country exposing all the bridges that are horrible accidents waiting to happen?

As Maddow points out, many of these projects are too big for private business to undertake, sometimes too big for a state to undertake.

Yeah, let's use tax dollars to fix the infrastructure that is dangerous, put people to work and pay them, let them spend that money to support local businesses and pay income taxes! It's a better investment than paying people less than livable unemployment benefits and see no production at all.

[Ana Cohan]

07:04 PM on 05/17/2011

Nothing like kicking people when they're down. What a mean-spirited country we're becoming.

[bejayech]

07:31 PM on 05/17/2011

You know, I don't think it's necessarily mean spirited. Could be the intent behind it, but not buying it. Was talking with my 11 year old son about this the other day. He wondered why we didn't have people do something helpful to the community or government while on unemployment. Because theyhave to have time to look for jobs, I told him. Why not just a couple of days a week, then, he asked?

And it seemed sensible to me. We're closing parks, cutting back community services, schools without manpower to perform non-teaching tasks. Why not get unemployed folks on unemployment to pitch in? Who knows, maybe they'll impress someone, make new contacts, and find a job in the process.

[Mr Forgettable]

10:08 PM on 05/17/2011

Missouri has a program similar to what you are describing, but it has not caught on. I am guessing it is because if you have kids at home, then you don't have money to pay for childcare. It really is a Catch-22 for the unemployed. You can go to work for minimum wage and earn less than $17,000 annually (pre-tax, SSI, unemployment, daycare, transportation to and from work, etc.) or sit at home and take care of your kids. BTW- As a person who works for a Career Center, the stereotype that the unemployed are lazy pieces of trash, is typically not the case.

[sc29403]

10:54 PM on 05/17/2011

Why not allow jobs to be created to fill these very real public "needs", not "wants"? The pay would go to income taxes and back into the economy when people can start buying goods thus increasing sales (more taxes paid), increased sales create new jobs and even more people spending and paying taxes and so on and so on.

How about we create jobs to do nothing but pursue fraud investigations in medicare? (They have about 4 people left working in that whole medicare agency, just enough to open the claims and pay them without review.) Pay minimum wage and a % of what one recovers? Can you imagine the billions that would be saved?

When a country supports their industries being sent overseas, let's face it, there are no private sector jobs. We need to start taking care of ourselves and maybe some will have a chance to create new industries when they don't have to worry about foreclosure or scraping up loose change to put gas in the car to get to a job interview. This situation of no jobs is out of control, and I don't think they're coming back.

Ask your son what he thinks about that. Republicans are vehemently against creating these kinds of jobs.

[HeartT]

04:49 PM on 05/17/2011

Thanks, Juicybasket. If you like, pass the word as the sequel will be coming out soon. It's the first of a trilogy. Really appreciate the interest.

[getsit]

04:30 PM on 05/17/2011

For every dollar paid out in unemployment benefits the economy is stimulated by a $1.60. Unemployment sounds like a good investment to me. Money is spent in the local economy supporting businesses and jobs are created. Of course that's stimulation for the middleclass.

But the Republicans agenda is not creating jobs. It's to keep more money for their wealthy overseers and themselves.

Here in CA we found, amazingly, more billions to help our deficit. What the irony is, those billions are coming from the rich BECAUSE THEY ARE DOING SO DARN WELL. While the rest of us are in a depression. And the Republicans in our legislature, even though their masters are so doing darn well (and not creating jobs with their boom money), still want more cuts to the middleclass and poor and no new taxes. CA is the only oil state that does NOT collect an oil extraction tax. Now that's a crime in my book.

[angry in ct]

03:39 PM on 05/17/2011

Basically, the Republiecon way of solving the country's problems come down to three words:

Obfuscation.
Deflection.
Filibustering.

[jsanti7]

02:48 PM on 05/17/2011

Bryant said. "We’ve got to find ways to stop paying people to stay home."

hmmm OK. I will bite .. if they stop giving money to corporations to not create jobs or outsource those jobs overseas , and a banking industry that does not lend money to grow the economy but grows its bottom line though invented Wall Street financial scams. problem solved ?

[mbcullen]

02:35 PM on 05/17/2011

So if the Bush tax cuts have been in place several years now, how come those people getting the tax cuts (the people the Republicans insist are the job creators) aren't creating the jobs for those who are unemployment?

How about this: you can keep your tax cut if you can show you are creating a good job and taking someone else of unemployment?

[itolduso]

02:24 PM on 05/17/2011

"Lawmakers in South Carolina say it's time to coddle business instead of the jobless"........ it makes sense.....in a year of record corporate profits & record corporate bonuses........ it's 'businesses' that are going to reward lawmakers with campaign contributions....not those unemployed & scrambling for food & shelter..... heck, with all the new, tough, expensive voter-registration requirements....those 'poor' people won't even be able to vote these guys out. Best government money can buy.

[kiksadi50]

02:19 PM on 05/17/2011

nothing makes me more angry than wealthy white people (like most of the faces of the GOP) bashing the unemployed who are collecting benefits that they payed into. you try supporting a family of 2 adults & 2 children on 1 person's benefits. pigs.

[brw1970]

01:59 PM on 05/18/2011

I support 2 adults, 4 kids on one pay check (less than 50K) It comes down to some personal choices: Do I go out to eat or eat at home? Do I buy that new _______ or can I do with the old _______? So it is do-able.

[Abstrakt27]

02:13 PM on 05/17/2011

Such a lie. Who says they can't take a job because they'd lose their unemployment benefits? No one says that. More Republican lies!