Congress passes jobless benefits extension

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Reporting from Washington President Obama signed an extension of jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed Thursday night that will allow those whose aid expired to apply retroactively.

When Congress passed the measure earlier in the day, it ended, at least for now, a partisan stalemate that highlighted election-year differences over federal spending.

The Senate passed the $18-billion measure, 59 to 38, with the support of 54 Democrats, three Republicans and two independents. Every other Republican opposed it; the other three Democrats were absent.

Hours later, the House passed the bill, 289 to 112.

The measure extends jobless aid through June 2. Democrats, anxious about high unemployment in an election year, are working on separate legislation to extend benefits through the end of the year.

Obama urged them to do so and said, in a statement: "In these tough economic times, it is more critical than ever to bring relief to Americans who are working every day to find a job, and families that are struggling to make ends meet."

He called job creation his top priority and pledged to "fight day and night until every American who wants a good job has one."

Unemployment benefits expired April 5 for tens of thousands who have been out of work longer than 26 weeks. The issue ignited a dispute between the parties over whether the cost of the extension should be offset by spending cuts to keep from increasing the federal budget deficit. Most Republicans said yes, but Democrats said the unemployment situation was an emergency and therefore exempt from offsetting spending cuts.

"Our debt and deficits are as much of an emergency as unemployment, yet Congress continues to pretend it can spend and borrow without restraint," said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).

About 212,000 people lost benefits when Congress failed to act before the expiration date, but the measure Obama signed extends the aid retroactively.

"If we do not pass this bill this week, another 200,000 Americans could lose their benefits," Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said during debate.

He accused Republicans of "playing games with the lives of unemployed Americans."

"We should not balance the budget on the backs of the unemployed," Baucus said.

Republicans were eager to use the bill to try to show that their party has a stronger commitment to fiscal discipline. "The Democrats talk the talk but can't walk the walk when it comes to getting our nation's fiscal house in order," said Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.).

But Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said extending the benefits, which average $335 a week, was not only the humane thing to do but would speed economic recovery by giving money to people who need it most and will spend it right away.

"I wonder when it was, if ever, that a senator tried to live on $300 a week," Durbin said.

Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, a Republican who voted for the measure, cited continuing economic troubles in her state, where 130 workers are losing their jobs this week with the closing of the nation's last remaining sardine cannery. Republicans George V. Voinovich of Ohio and Susan Collins of Maine also supported the bill. Democrats Evan Bayh of Indiana, Bill Nelson of Florida and Mark R. Warner of Virginia were absent.

The bill also extends COBRA health insurance subsidies and federal flood insurance and restores Medicare payments to doctors, who were about to absorb a 21% reduction in payments.

First-time claims for jobless benefits rose by 24,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 484,000, the highest since late February

More than 11 million jobless workers are collecting some form of unemployment benefits, including nearly 5.7 million receiving extensions, according to the National Employment Law Project.

richard.simon@

latimes.com

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Snowe and Collins are gonna get attacked by the teabagger freak fringe.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Yay. More Welfare...

For fucks sake. Stop renewing it.

[Peikko 1,575]

Glad to see your non partisan spirit showing there because the GOP support the benefit, just not extending the credit line to fund it.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Glad to see your non partisan spirit showing there because the GOP support the benefit, just not extending the credit line to fund it.

I don't support any extended welfare....

At this point they should be offering tax incentives for businesses who hire the 'unemployed' and at the same time telling the unemployed who refuse to 'settle' for now with a job they may not like to kiss the government's #### and get the hell off the system.

I'd work at Wal-Mart or McDonald's before I'd ever settle on jobless benefits for a long period of time....

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

At this point they should be offering tax incentives for businesses who hire the 'unemployed'

They are. Where have you been?

March 18, 2010

ASSOCIATED PRESS

Companies that hire unemployed workers will get a temporary payroll tax holiday under a bill that easily won congressional approval Wednesday.

The 68-29 bipartisan vote in the Senate sent the legislation to the White House. President Obama is expected to sign it into law today. Eleven Republicans voted for the legislation.

...

The bill exempts businesses that hire people who have been jobless for at least 60 days from paying the 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax through December and gives employers an additional $1,000 credit if new workers stay on the job a full year.

I'd work at Wal-Mart or McDonald's before I'd ever settle on jobless benefits for a long period of time....

I feel the same way, but for the sake of clarity - how long is long?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I feel the same way, but for the sake of clarity - how long is long?

Well, I couldn't stand it for longer than a couple of months personally. I'd be working any part-time/full-time low end job I could get my hands on if I wasn't successful within a month or two... Hell, I'd be out there with the Mexican day laborers if necessary to take care of business.

6 months is far too long to be milking the system though and especially figuring businesses get charged for those who are unemployemnt, it hurts a lot more than most realize..

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Well, I couldn't stand it for longer than a couple of months personally. I'd be working any part-time/full-time low end job I could get my hands on if I wasn't successful within a month or two... Hell, I'd be out there with the Mexican day laborers if necessary to take care of business.

6 months is far too long to be milking the system though and especially figuring businesses get charged for those who are unemployemnt, it hurts a lot more than most realize..

Interesting.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Give a man a fish and........ nevermind, it's over most peoples heads. Just print more money.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Give a man a fish and........

he'll beat a commie over the head with it.

[mawilson 2,133]

Congress passes jobless benefits extension

Fuсk.

[alienlovechild 75]

Glad to see your non partisan spirit showing there because the GOP support the benefit, just not extending the credit line to fund it.

The GOP wanted some other spending cuts to pay for it which isn't irresponsible unless you believe there's nothing to cut. Shouldn't be a problem if it's important.

Unemployment benefits expired April 5 for tens of thousands who have been out of work longer than 26 weeks. The issue ignited a dispute between the parties over whether the cost of the extension should be offset by spending cuts to keep from increasing the federal budget deficit. Most Republicans said yes, but Democrats said the unemployment situation was an emergency and therefore exempt from offsetting spending cuts.

6 months is far too long to be milking the system though and especially figuring businesses get charged for those who are unemployemnt, it hurts a lot more than most realize..

It's not 6 months.

"But under multiple extensions enacted by the federal government in response to the downturn, workers can collect the payments for as long as 99 weeks in states with the highest unemployment rates -- the longest period since the program's inception."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/08/AR2010030804927_pf.html

[Ban Hammer 14,371]

Fuсk.

plenty of time to do that now for those guaranteed benefits extension.

[alienlovechild 75]

plenty of time to do that now for those guaranteed benefits extension.

Spreading the love and the wealth- Obama 2012 bumpersticker

[Nikita2Charles 33]

You think 6months-1 year is milking the system? I do agree the system need to change

A few people, and example is this lady who got a temporary Job for less money, when the Job expired they recalculate her unemployment benefit and they counted the last 3 months, so when she got back on unemployment she was worsed off, if she didn't take that Job her unemployment check would have been the same, now she got penalized because she got a job.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0329/Is-any-work-better-than-no-work-Not-for-unemployment-benefits

Is any work better than no work? Not for unemployment benefits.

Unemployed Americans who take parttime or temp work may find that their unemployment benefits get cut after that job ends. It's a disincentive to work, but Congress is moving to remedy that.

Lisa Lewis works parttime at a Kansas City daycare. Unable to find a full-time job, the 37-year-old works parttime, thus becoming ineligible for unemployment benefits. That is enough to discourage some from taking parttime work, and lawmakers are now trying to change that policy.

Ed Zurga/AP

Enlarge

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Ron Scherer, Staff writer / March 29, 2010

New York

Roberta Hanson of North Haven, Conn., had been searching for work for 22 months when she landed a parttime job weekend afternoons and nights for a nearby municipal parks and recreation department.

Skip to next paragraph Related Stories

Blog: In long, cold recession, Sweden kept workers on the job. Its secret? The Monitor's View

Senate jobs bill: the perils of extended unemployment benefits Underemployed: For some US workers, now any job will do But now Ms. Hanson rues the day she took that work. Why? The Connecticut Department of Labor used her negligible earnings in her parttime job as the new baseline for Hanson's unemployment benefits. She went from receiving $483 a week to getting nothing.

“Afterwards, unofficially, they said I shouldn’t have taken the job,” Hanson says.

It's a twist in the law that may affect thousands of other workers, given that the ranks of the long-term unemployed are now so high. Many people who have been out of work for a year are picking up work as temps or part-timers, unaware that state agencies will recalculate their unemployment benefits after a year – and use their most recent work history and pay level to do it.

“What is going on for these workers is that because their most recent wages are much lower than the wages they earned in their prior fulltime job, they are facing substantial cuts in their weekly unemployment benefits,” says George Wentworth, a consultant at the National Employment Law Project (NELP) in New York.

Benefits recalculated after a year

Most of the people caught in this snag are on Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC), a federal program to help those who have exhausted their state benefits. However, after workers have been jobless for 52 weeks, states are required to check to see if a worker has requalified for state benefits. If someone is eligible for state benefits – no matter how small – federal law requires that he or she stop collecting EUC and go back onto state benefits. The states, many with unemployment pools that are borrowing from the federal government, are dramatically reducing the amount paid out to individuals.

Mr. Wentworth cites the example of a Massachusetts woman who had been getting $540 a week in unemployment benefits and, when returned to state benefits, saw her weekly benefit cut to $103. To make matters worse, her husband, also unemployed, saw his benefit drop from $600 a week to $199 a week. Each cut came as a result of having taken a short-term job.

Hanson’s situation is even worse. Connecticut's formula for parttime workers is to take two-thirds of their gross salary (in her case $130 a week, which is $87) and subtract that amount from $39, which would be her weekly benefit based on the parttime job. This gives her a negative $48, or no benefit at all.

“Something is wrong,” Hanson says. “I am allowed to get nothing!”

Temp jobs on the rise

The potential reduction in benefits for parttimers and temps comes as temp services are starting to hire more workers because businesses don’t want to add fulltimers until they're sure the economic recovery is permanent. In February, temporary help services added 48,000 jobs, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics reported. Since September, jobs at temp services have risen by 284,000.

In the 1990s, the last time America saw high long-term unemployment among a sizable share of its work force, Congress changed the law to prevent the unemployed from being penalized for taking up parttime work. However, that change expired.

Now, Sen. Jack Reed (D) of Rhode Island is sponsoring legislation to accomplish the same thing today. Senator Reed attached his proposal to a bill that extended several tax provisions, plus farm disaster assistance, unemployment benefits, and COBRA health benefits.

“We need to incentivize people to find work, not unfairly punish folks who were able to find short-term, temporary employment,” said Reed in a statement.

However, the legislative package, which passed the Senate on March 10, is in limbo because the House version is different.

Reed argues that his change could potentially help states, because the long-term unemployed would receive benefits from the US Treasury. Many state unemployment funds are now insolvent and have had to borrow from the US government.

It could also help people like Hanson, who worked for 28 years for a Connecticut social services program that was eliminated. She is trying to support her elderly father as well as herself on her parttime job, credit cards, and Social Security. “I have written everyone from President Obama – from whom I [have] heard nothing back – to my local representative [in Congress], Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D), who is very supportive,” she says.