Congress passes payroll tax deal

By Reuters
Friday, December 23, 2011

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congress approved a two-month payroll tax cut extension on Friday, capping an exhausting year of partisan warfare over taxes and spending that will resume in January, with the economy barely scratching out a recovery and elections on the horizon.

Both the Senate and the House of Representatives, by voice votes in chambers nearly emptied for the holidays, passed a $33 billion measure to keep the payroll tax rate at 4.2 percent until the end of February. It had been slated to increase after December 31 to 6.2 percent.

The temporary fix lets lawmakers draw down the curtain, for now, on weeks of partisan deadlock that in the end produced only another inconclusive truce in a debate over taxes and spending that is set to rage straight through 2012.

The temporary payroll tax fix gives President Barack Obama and the Democrats a political win over Republicans. The 2012 election cycle is about to kick off with the January 3 Iowa Republican presidential caucus, but a long road lies ahead until voters go to polls in November.

House Republicans backed down late on Thursday from their opposition to the two-month extension, clearing the way for Friday’s action.


Unemployment benefits that had been set to expire soon were extended as well, while cuts in payments to doctors who treat patients in the government-backed Medicare health insurance program for the elderly were also postponed, under the measures.

An increase in the payroll tax would have hit the wallets of 160 million U.S. workers at a time of high unemployment and deep voter dissatisfaction with the tax system, the shape of the economy and the way Congress conducts itself.

Analysts had warned that failing to renew the tax cut could jeopardize the economic recovery, perhaps even risking another recession.

House Speaker John Boehner, the top U.S. Republican, yielded to pressure from Democrats and his party and agreed, with minor changes, to allow a vote on the extension bill passed by the Senate last week with bipartisan support.

The two-month deal came after lawmakers were unable to agree on ways to offset the costs of a full-year payroll tax cut extension. The temporary extension legislation was expected to be sent to Obama to sign into law before December 31.

Democratic Representative Chris Van Hollen said on Friday the two parties remained far apart on how to pay for a full-year fix.

“I heard Eric Cantor (the No. 2 Republican in the House) at one point say the parties are really close on the one-year deal. That’s just not the case,” Van Hollen told MSNBC.

Most of the Unemployed No Longer Receive Unemployment Benefits

 (...to the glee of Republicans everywhere...--jef)

Saturday, November 5, 2011 by the Associated Press

by Christopher S. Rugaber 

 

 

WASHINGTON — The jobs crisis has left so many people out of work for so long that most of America's unemployed are no longer receiving unemployment benefits.
  
Early last year, 75 percent were receiving checks. The figure is now 48 percent — a shift that points to a growing crisis of long-term unemployment. Nearly one-third of America's 24 million unemployed have had no job for a year or more.

Congress is expected to decide by year's end whether to continue providing emergency unemployment benefits for up to 99 weeks in the hardest-hit states. If the emergency benefits expire, the proportion of the unemployed receiving aid would fall further.

The ranks of the poor would also rise. The Census Bureau says unemployment benefits kept 3.2 million people from slipping into poverty last year. It defines poverty as annual income below $22,314 for a family of four.

Yet for most of the unemployed, a vote in Congress to extend the benefits to 99 weeks is irrelevant. They've had no job for more than 99 weeks. They're no longer eligible for benefits.

Their options include food stamps or other social programs. Nearly 46 million people received food stamps in August, a record total. That figure could grow as more people lose unemployment benefits.

So could the government's disability rolls. Applications for the disability insurance program have jumped about 50 percent since 2007.

"There's going to be increased hardship," said Wayne Vroman, an economist at the Urban Institute.

The number of unemployed has been roughly stable this year. Yet the number receiving benefits has plunged 30 percent.

Government unemployment benefits weren't designed to sustain people for long stretches without work. They usually don't have to. In the recoveries from the previous three recessions, the longest average duration of unemployment was 21 weeks, in July 1983.

By contrast, in the wake of the Great Recession, the figure reached 41 weeks in September. That's the longest on records dating to 1948. The figure is now 39 weeks.

"It was a good safety net for a shorter recession," said Carl Van Horn, an economist at Rutgers University. It assumes "the economy will experience short interruptions and then go back to normal."

Weekly unemployment checks average about $300 nationwide. If the extended benefits aren't renewed, growth could slow by up to a half-percentage point next year, economists say.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that each $1 spent on unemployment benefits generates up to $1.90 in economic growth. The CBO has found that the program is the most effective government policy for increasing growth among 11 options it's analyzed.

Jon Polis lives in East Greenwich, R.I., one of the 20 states where 99 weeks of benefits are available. He used them all up after losing his job as a warehouse worker in 2008. His benefits paid for groceries, car maintenance and health insurance.

Now, Polis, 55, receives disability insurance payments, food stamps and lives in government-subsidized housing. He's been unable to find work because employers in his field want computer skills he doesn't have.

"Employers are crying that they can't find qualified help," he said. But the ones he interviewed with "weren't willing to train anybody."

From late 2007, when the recession began, to early 2010, the number of people receiving unemployment benefits rose more than four-fold, to 11.5 million.

But the economy has remained so weak that an analysis of long-term unemployment data suggests that about 4 million people have used up 99 weeks of checks and still can't find work.

Contributing to the smaller share of the unemployed who are receiving benefits: Some of them are college graduates or others seeking jobs for the first time. They aren't eligible. Only those who have lost a job through no fault of their own qualify.

The proportion of the unemployed receiving benefits usually falls below 50 percent during an economic recovery. Many have either quit jobs or are new to the job market and don't qualify.

Today, the proportion is falling for a very different reason: Jobs remain scarce. So more of the unemployed are exhausting their benefits.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has noted that the long-term unemployed increasingly find it hard to find work as their skills and professional networks erode. In a speech last month, Bernanke called long-term unemployment a "national crisis" that should be a top priority for Congress.

Lawmakers will have to decide whether to continue the extended benefits by the end of this year. If the program ends, nearly 2.2 million people will be cut off by February.

Congress has extended the program nine times. But it might balk at the $45 billion cost. It will be the first time the Republican-led House will vote on the issue.

The Forgotten Jobless (Awesome editorial)

Growing Dangers
By MARK VORPAHL

In the political theater exhibited last December where 13 months of unemployment extensions were linked to continuing tax breaks for the rich, a significant issue was left out of the drama, though it directly impacts the lives of millions. That is the fate of those who have become known as the 99ers.

The 99ers are those who have not been able to find a job, though they have exhausted all their employment benefits. The number of people applying for unemployment benefits peaked from November 2008 to May 2009. Ninety-nine weeks later those still unemployed had exhausted their benefits and disappeared from the official unemployment statistics. They no longer have a social safety net to land in and crawl out of.

Their numbers and continuing growth are staggering, and their desperate situation effects all working class Americans -- employed and unemployed. The fact that their fate was left unaddressed last December, while the economic top one percent were allowed hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks, says a lot about the political priorities of those who set policy in this country and whose voices they listen to.

Long-term joblessness has been an especially pronounced problem in the Great Recession. Those out of work for longer than six months make up 45.9 percent of all those unemployed. Those out of work for over a year make up 23 percent. This situation is not improving. For every job there are still a minimum of five workers competing to get it. According to the Federal Reserve's extended forecast, the unemployment rate in 2011 will not go below nine percent, and in 2012 it will remain at eight percent or higher.

This bleak outlook is all the more difficult for the 99ers since employers frequently use a long period of unemployment as a reason not to hire workers. It has been estimated that there are over two million 99ers. By the end of 2011, this number is expected to increase by four million, with the peak month for unemployment benefit cutoffs occurring in April.

Growing Dangers

With the fate of so many up in the air, we are seeing the development of another storm within the hurricane of the Great Recession. If allowed to go ignored on a national level, it will have destructive consequences for society as a whole.

For the 99ers themselves it will result in grinding poverty with little hope of escape. Their families will also be pulled into this mess since, according to the President's Council of Economic Advisers, 40 percent of the long-term unemployed are the sole household income earners.

The cutoff of so many benefits will throw up another obstacle to the distant possibility of an economic recovery. This is because people on unemployment immediately put their money back into the economy to pay bills and buy basic necessities, unlike the economic elite who are hoarding trillions of dollars in profits. By cutting off the ability to buy these goods for millions, there will be a damaging effect on job creation because of decreasing demand.

All workers will be impacted by the situation the 99ers face. What we are seeing is the potential development of a new large layer of the permanently unemployed. This new layer will be used by big business as a threat to those who have jobs in order to downsize wages, degrade their working conditions, and discourage union organizing.

Prospects for Help

The dire circumstances of the 99ers and the problems this creates for American workers are too massive to completely ignore. There has been some talk in Congress of extending unemployment benefits for the 99ers. This is referred to as adding a V Tier to the unemployment benefit's schedule. According to Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, a bill for this will be debated in Congress this March.

The passage of such a bill is unlikely at this point, however. Having extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich, the majority of those in Congress are now wringing their hands over the deficit this measure greatly enlarged. While there is always more money for Wall Street, when it comes to main-street and the 99ers, the necessary funds are mysteriously unavailable.

Working people and the unemployed cannot rely on the politicians to get the change we need. We can only rely on our own collective strength. That is, we need to organize and mobilize as a united, massive, powerful force that cannot be ignored by those more intent to do Wall Street's bidding. The creation of unemployment benefits itself was the result of such a social movement in the 1930s. By looking at this history, we can begin to see a hopeful future.

The 1930s

During the Great Depression, the first mobilization for government relief for the jobless happened on March 6, 1930 in New York City. 500,000 came out despite of the brutal treatment dished out by the club-wielding police. In October, they mobilized at City Hall again and this time, despite more beatings and arrests by the police, walked away with the city granting $1 million in additional relief (roughly $13 million in today's terms).

Had the advocates for relief limited their approach to lobbying the city government to "do the right thing," they may have received a million promises, but not a dime would have found its way into the pockets of the jobless. By mobilizing in a massive way the organizers of these demonstrations put into action a display of collective power that the politicians had to reckon with.

This approach began to be repeated in countless cities across the country as well as taken up on a national level. Demonstrations of 100,000 were not uncommon and sometimes much larger. Hundreds of unemployed councils were organized to more effectively struggle for their demands. Through these efforts, the political environment that had for years been dominated by Wall Street at the expense of workers, was beginning to shift.

Though there were important victories, the relief won was still a drop in the bucket compared to the vast misery created by the Great Depression. By 1934 the tactic of mass mobilizations helped to create the conditions and organization for more powerful actions such as large strikes, sit-ins, and general strikes. The demand for unemployment relief began to be combined with demands for full employment, the strengthening of union rights, and the creation of a social safety net. These demands linked the interests of the employed and unemployed and saw results in swelling picket lines and community support for sit-ins. Through mass direct action workers were challenging the power of Wall Street and the political establishment that served their interests.

It was this potentially revolutionary movement that forced President Roosevelt's hand. In 1935 he pushed through the National Labor Relations Act, which provided federally recognized protection of union rights, and the Social Security Act, which created unemployment insurance and formed the foundation of the social safety net we have today. He also launched the Works Progress Administration that employed millions of workers and helped to build the country's infrastructure.

When Roosevelt came into office, he did not even hint at the remotest interest in taking such far-reaching measures. He could not because these measures came at the expense of Wall Street's profits - and Wall Street was organized, main-street was not. However, as a result of the largest grass roots movement this nation has ever seen, Roosevelt was compelled to do what he had previously considered impossible.

As in the 1930s, today we must organize in a way that creates unity between the employed and unemployed. To start, we can organize the largest possible union-led demonstrations to realize this unity in the streets. Educating and agitating on demands for economic relief for the 99ers and a jobs-creation program funded by raising Wall Street's taxes, would help to rally the numbers to make an impact. We must not be distracted by those who wish to dilute these demands by arguing that they are impossible, given the current political climate. It is that political climate that must be changed and this will not happen unless workers unite around their own needs and aspirations. The history of the 1930s demonstrates that when workers join into a movement representing their own interests, what is considered impossible can be made possible.

The Physical and Emotional Costs of Long-Term Unemployment

Thursday, November 18, 2010 by ColorLines
by Yvonne Yen Liu

CNN and the New York Times report new research that shows that long-term unemployment doesn’t just impact the jobless in the short-term, but has deep implications for the lifelong health and well-being of an individual as well as their children and families. One study by a sociologist at Albany, Kate W. Strully, found that people who lose their jobs are 83 percent more likely to develop stress-induced conditions, such as diabetes, arthritis, or depression. 

Another paper by an economist at Columbia University, Till von Wachter, looked at mortality and income records of workers in Pennsylvania during the recession of the early 1980s. Wachter found that death rates increased astronomically for the unemployed in the year they lose their jobs, up to 100 percent. Mortality rates remained significantly higher for those that lose their jobs than for comparable workers who didn’t. In fact, the life expectancy of the unemployed is cut by a year to a year and a half.

The NY Times shared also stories of white steel workers who had heart attacks after being laid off from their jobs because the steel mill closed. We know that workers of color feel these health impacts doubly, on top of the existing trauma of structural racism.

Here’s what all of this adds up to: We need the White House and Congress to put aside partisan bickering and craft a large-scale job creation program that will put the millions of unemployed to work. The crisis has gone on long enough and spread wide enough that the costs of not doing so spread way past economics.

In the short-term, the lame-duck Congress will face a decision over whether to extend unemployment benefits. Typically, benefits last 26 weeks. The maximum time period was extended this past July, but will expire on Nov. 30 unless Congress passes legislation to continue relief. Yesterday, several advocacy groups sponsored a national call-in day to Congress to urge senators to continue unemployment benefits.

Unemployment insurance acts as a buffer, reducing the shock and strain on the jobless during economic hard times. It also stimulates spending in the economy, which can create jobs. The long-term unemployed have to spend their benefits immediately because they don’t have income or savings. That spending on food, rent and other basic needs translates into an infusion of cash into the economy and the creation of jobs. The Economic Policy Institute calculated that extending the unemployment insurance generated 1.7 million jobs in the first quarter of 2010. Were Congress to continue benefits through 2011, EPI estimates that over 700,000 jobs will be created.

Our people are hurting now, not only economically, but also in physical and emotional well-being. Extending benefits for the unemployed is the least our government can due for us, in our time of great need.

Extended Unemployment Could Outlast Extended Unemployment Insurance

by Arthur Delaney Friday, November 5, 2010 by The Huffington Post

WASHINGTON -- The government announced Friday morning that the unemployment situation barely changed in October. The unemployment rate has been stuck above nine percent for a year and a half as nearly 15 million people are out of work. They will remain so for the foreseeable future, according to most estimates.

People who lost their jobs more recently may get less of a cushion than people laid off at the beginning of the recession. That's because Congress may lose its appetite for reauthorizing the extended unemployment insurance it created in 2008 and 2009.

According to the Labor Department, 6.2 million people -- 41.8 percent of all unemployed -- have been out of work for longer than six months. State governments provide jobless benefits for layoff victims for those first six months, and the federal government traditionally picks up the rest during recessions.

To fight the worst recession since the Great Depression, Congress has given the unemployed in hardest-hit states an unprecedented 73 weeks of additional benefits. During the second-worst recession in the early 1980s, Congress provided 55 weeks. It didn't begin to take them away until unemployment dropped to 7.2 percent.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told HuffPost on Thursday that reauthorizing the 73 weeks is her third priority in the upcoming lame duck session, after dealing with the expiring Bush tax cuts and providing a $250 cost-of-living benefit for Social Security recipients.

But once Congress reconvenes on Nov. 15, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will have just two weeks before the extended benefits expire at the end of the month. Republicans and conservative Democrats held up the previous reauthorization for nearly two months.

The progressive Economic Policy Institute estimates that keeping extended unemployment benefits through 2011 would create 723,000 jobs at a cost of $65 billion, or 1.7 percent of the White House's projected $3.8 trillion budget for that year. Most economists regard unemployment insurance as among the most economically stimulative fiscal policies.

It will be extremely difficult for lame-duck Democrats to get such a lengthy reauthorization. The previous four efforts each lasted for a few months at a time. If the next reauthorization is similarly short, that means it will come due on the watch of incoming House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who will probably not be amenable to tens of billions in deficit spending specifically requested by President Obama. Congressional Democrats have refused to compromise on offsetting the cost of unemployment benefits, which are traditionally given an emergency designation.

"Congress doesn't have to be a lame duck -- it can make a huge impact now by renewing for another year the jobless benefit extensions that expire on November 30th," said Christine Owens, director of the National Employment Law Project, in a statement Friday. "If Congress fails to act, two million workers will be cut off next month alone -- in the heart of the holidays -- and any brief stopgaps will still put millions at risk of cut- offs next year. Congress simply cannot pull the plug on families and businesses if it has any realistic intention to turn things around."

There are lots of people who are still unemployed after 99 weeks of benefits (though nobody knows how many). It's unlikely they'll get any more help from Congress.

President Obama said Friday in light of the bleak employment situation that part of his strategy to create jobs includes "extending unemployment benefits to help those hardest hit by the downturn while generating more demand in the economy."

Why a Civil Society Extends Unemployment Benefits

A record number of Americans is unemployed for a record length of time. This is a national tragedy.
By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog
Posted on September 1, 2010

I have the questionable distinction of appearing on Larry Kudlow’s CNBC program several times a week, arguing with people whose positions under normal circumstances would get no serious attention, and defending policies I would have thought so clearly and obviously defensible they should need no justification. But we are living through strange times. The economy is so bad that the social fabric is coming undone, and what used to be merely weird economic theories have become debatable public policies.

Tonight it was Harvard Professor Robert Barro, who opined in today’s Wall Street Journal that America’s high rate of long-term unemployment is the consequence rather than the cause of today’s extended unemployment insurance benefits.

If people who lose their jobs received generous unemployment benefits they might stay unemployed longer than if they got nothing. But they don't. Unemployment benefits are always a small fraction of the income based on what an employee made the previous year employed. So that’s hardly a reason to jettison unemployment benefits or turn our backs on millions of Americans who through no fault of their own remain jobless in the worst economy since the Great Depression.

Yet moral hazard lurks in every conservative brain. It’s also true that if we got rid of lifeguards and let more swimmers drown, fewer people would venture into the water. And if we got rid of fire departments and more houses burnt to the ground, fewer people would use stoves. A civil society is not based on the principle of tough love.

In point of fact, most states provide unemployment benefits that are only a fraction of the wages and benefits people lost when their jobs disappeared. Indeed, fewer than 40 percent of the unemployed in most states are even eligible for benefits, because states require applicants have been in full-time jobs for at least three to five years. This often rules out a majority of those who are jobless – because they’ve moved from job to job, or have held a number of part-time jobs.

So it’s hard to make the case that many of the unemployed have chosen to remain jobless and collect unemployment benefits rather than work.

Anyone who bothered to step into the real world would see the absurdity of Barro’s position. Right now, there are roughly five applicants for every job opening in America. If the job requires relatively few skills, hundreds of applicants line up for it. The Bureau of Labor Statistics says 15 percent of people without college degrees are jobless today; that’s not counting large numbers too discouraged even to look for work.

Barro argues the rate of unemployment in this Great Jobs Recession is comparable to what it was in the 1981-82 recession, but the rate of long-term unemployed then was nowhere as high as it is now. He concludes this is because unemployment benefits didn’t last nearly as long in 1981 and 82 as it they do now.

He fails to see – or disclose – that the 81-82 recession was far more benign than this one, and over far sooner. It was caused by Paul Volcker and the Fed yanking up interest rates to break the back of inflation – and overshooting. When they pulled interest rates down again, the economy shot back to life.

The Great Jobs Recession is far more severe. It’s continuing far longer. It was caused by the bursting of a giant housing bubble, abetted by the excesses of Wall Street. Home values are still 20 to 30 percent below where they were in 1997. The Fed is powerless because consumers cannot and will not buy enough to bring the economy back to life.

A record number of Americans is unemployed for a record length of time. This is a national tragedy. It is to the nation’s credit that many are receiving unemployment benefits. This is good not only for them and their families but also for the economy as a whole, because it allows them to spend and thereby keep others in jobs. That a noted professor would argue against this is obscene.

99ers Rally For Unemployment Extension

Advocates for the 1.5 Million Americans Who Have Exhausted Unemployment Insurance Benefits Press for Aid from Washington
by Annie Lowery | Friday, August 13, 2010 by The Washington Independent

After 99 weeks, or more, of unemployment, traveling to a political rally is a luxury. Across the country, thousands of 99ers, Americans who have exhausted the maximum weeks of unemployment benefits, have written letters or called Congress advocating for legislation extending benefits or creating jobs programs. But the first 99ers rally, held on Wall Street this Thursday, proved a more modest affair.

Normally, the unemployed suffer from political disenfranchisement, on top of the hardships of joblessness, including loss of income, poorer health outcomes and eroding skills. But a group of activists working online have founded list-servs and websites to connect hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers. And they have teamed up with major labor unions, like the AFL-CIO and the SEIU, to flex their political might. Up until now, their efforts have been virtual; at Thursday's rally, the unemployed took to the streets for the first time.

The rally came at a good time politically. Despite the very long odds of passage, Senate and House Democrats have originated two bills to aid the 99ers in the past 10 days. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) introduced a bill moving the maximum number of weeks of federal and state benefits to 119 last week. And this week, Rep. Jim McDermott (Wash.) and Shelley Berkley (Nv.) introduced similar legislation in the House.

But just two dozen or so 99ers and a few dozen more unemployed persons met on the steps of Federal Hall, across from the New York Stock Exchange. (Most of the 99ers or figures in the unemployment netroots I spoke with before the event said that they could not afford the gas or plane ticket to get to the rally.) Members of the Transport Workers Union of America Local 100 and the United Federation of Teachers joined them.

A few hiccups marred the event. The weather hardly cooperated, with spitting rain and punishing heat and humidity. Additionally, the organizers failed to register for a sound permit, so the New York City Policy officers keeping the peace ordered activists to put away the megaphone about 10 minutes into the event.

Organized by the fledgling Unemployed Workers Action Group, the rally called for an expansion of unemployment insurance and jobs programs for the long-term unemployed. There are an estimated 1.5 million 99ers across the country, and their plight results from a recession with not just an unusually high unemployment rate, but an unusually long average duration of unemployment. Indeed, a typical jobless worker - of whom there are 14.6 million - has been out of work for more than 34 weeks, about 8 months, a length unprecedented since the Great Depression.

Despite its small size, the 99ers' rally accomplished an important goal: It got the attention of the press, and advocates for the 99ers see the press as the key to creating pressure for legislation. "Two months ago, nobody knew who the 99ers were," LaDona King, a 99er and major figure in the 99er netroots told me. "Everybody thought it was some city's AAA baseball team."

But with growing awareness, they hope, will come political action. To that end, a volunteer at the rally took journalists' names and numbers, and ensured that any reporter wanting access to a 99er for her story got easy access to several. Late in the event, Ed Schultz - the MSNBC and radio host who has devoted countless programming minutes to the 99ers, and for that reason holds nearly beatific standing among them - stood in a pair of khaki shorts at the back, conducting interviews and shaking hands. (He planned to address the crowd, but could not because of the noise permit issue.)

And with the press there, the 99ers at the rally got their chance to speak, and tell their stories. Betty S. Cohen, of Brooklyn, worked as an administrative assistant at an investment bank - not a commercial bank, she notes - for two years before she was laid off in July 2008. "My skills are excellent," she sighs, "but I can't get a job anywhere." She has applied to hundreds of positions via Monster.com and other online search engines, as well as contacting former employers and friends for leads. "I have gotten five calls, and no offers." she says. "They don't tell you why."

She has long since exhausted any savings, does not have any living family and is increasingly late on her rent and bills, though she says she was recently approved for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits. "A friend loaned me $20," she says. "And I told her I didn't know when I would pay it back. I offered to pay her back in food. I can buy that now, at least."

Marion Glandorf formerly worked for Grenadier Realty Corp. on Roosevelt Island as an executive assistant. She managed contractor relationships for 1,100 apartments, assessed tenant needs and answered scores of calls per day. She came to the rally - she notes she is not a 99er, not yet - wearing a giant sign with her resume on it around her neck.

Joining her was Bob Kohler of Suffolk County, New York. He had worked as an IT project manager before the recession, and has focused on writing motivational works about the power of positive thinking and the need to accept hardship. (He said the angry tone of the rally, with speakers shouting at the nearby investment banks, would prove counterproductive.)

Kohler did not realize his unemployment insurance would run out shortly after Christmas. It just stopped. "It happened abruptly," he said, and his wife and he had not adequately prepared. "The American dream?" he says, softly. "It's decimated."

The rally attempted to capture that sense of decimation, with speakers sharing their stories of hardship - the loss of homes, the loss of respect, the trouble with health, the depression - on the Federal Hall steps, facing the New York Stock Exchange. Some rallied against the banks nearby, but most focused on the need for congressional jobs bills and a Tier V.

Dozens of tourists stopped to listen and to clap in support among the protesters and the camera crews. So did a few investment bankers. "Get a fucking job" shouted one young man dressed, stereotypically, in a dark suit, red tie and loafers, his hair sharply parted. He was booed.

Senate advances unemployment extension bill

Jul 20, 2010 | USA Today On Politics

Millions of out-of-work Americans would continue to receive unemployment benefits through November under legislation that cleared a major procedural hurdle in the Senate today after months of debate.

Democrats captured the 60 votes required to overcome GOP opposition only after swearing in a new Democratic senator from West Virginia, Carte Goodwin, who will temporarily fill the seat left vacant by the June 28 death of Robert Byrd.

The legislation, which was supported by President Obama, will extend benefits for those who have already used their standard 26 weeks of unemployment. The measure now faces a final vote in the Senate and must also clear the House of Representatives.

Republicans have said they also support extending the benefits but argue that the $34 billion cost of the proposal should not add to the deficit. "Of course we ought to extend unemployment," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "But we ought to pay for it."

The vote came just minutes after Goodwin was sworn in, giving Democrats the 60 votes they needed to overcome the threat of a GOP filibuster. Goodwin was escorted on to the Senate floor by West Virginia's senior senator, Democrat Jay Rockefeller. Vice President Biden administered the oath of office.

"Hey, Carte, welcome," Biden said before presiding over the swearing in. "Good to see you, man."

Updated at 3:25 p.m. ET. Two Republicans -- Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins -- voted for the unemployment legislation. One Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, voted against it.

"I support extending unemployment benefits for Nebraskans and Americans who remain out of work," Nelson said in a statement. "However, I opposed the Senate's unemployment bill today because it should have, and it could have, been paid for."

Millionaire Senators Moan About 'Disincentives' For The Lazy Unemployed. Meanwhile, No Action On Extensions

vidlink

No unemployment extension

Benefits not in sight for the long-term jobless
By Michael A. Fletcher | Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 13, 2010; A01

TOMS RIVER, N.J. -- Even before his unemployment checks ended, Dwight Michael Frazee's days were filled with the pursuit of any idea that could earn him a buck. But few are working out, and now his nights are filled with dread.

In the coming weeks, the Senate is expected to resume its debate about whether to extend the emergency jobless benefits that were passed in response to the steep increase in unemployment caused by the recession. But people like Frazee, who have suffered the longest in the downturn, will not be part of that conversation. They are among the 1.4 million workers who have been unemployed for at least 99 weeks, according to the Labor Department, reaching the limit for the insurance. Their numbers have grown sixfold in the past three years.

The 99ers are glaring examples of the nation's most serious bout of long-term joblessness since the Great Depression. Nearly 46 percent of the country's 14.6 million unemployed people have been out of work for more than six months, and forecasters project that the situation will not improve anytime soon. Currently, the Labor Department says there are nearly five unemployed people for every job opening.

Frazee, 50, has applied for work at more places than he can remember since he lost his construction job two years ago. He has tried car dealerships, Kmart, Home Depot and the funky shops on the boardwalk in Seaside Heights, near Toms River. He looked into becoming a commercial crabber, working in title insurance and as a bail bondsman. But no dice.

While searching for work, he lived on $585 a week in unemployment payments. But the checks were cut off in May when he reached 99 weeks. Now Frazee, who is married and has a 5-year-old daughter, is in a financial free fall with no safety net.

"My life has been total stress. I sleep maybe four hours a night, worrying about money," he said. "I understood the president and Congress had to stabilize the banks, get Wall Street going. I figured something would be done for middle-class Americans, that they couldn't abandon us. But I was wrong."

Since the recession began in December 2007, lawmakers have passed several extensions that stretched the normal 26-week limit for unemployment benefits to as long as 99 weeks in the hardest-hit states. In the Washington area, only workers in the District, where unemployment is 10.4 percent -- well above the 9.5 percent national rate -- qualify for the longest-term unemployment benefits. Virginia and Maryland residents can receive benefits as long as 86 weeks, including 60 weeks of federally financed benefits. The Labor Department has no statistics on the number of workers in each jurisdiction who have exhausted their benefits.

With the federal extensions now up for renewal, Congress has shown decreasing enthusiasm for them amid increasing concern about the ballooning deficit.

On several occasions, Senate Republicans have said they would not vote for stimulus bills that included unemployment extensions, saying any new spending must be offset by cuts elsewhere. With the extensions expired at least temporarily, more than 2 million Americans have lost their unemployment benefits, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research organization. A report by the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that 21,700 Virginians, 12,300 Marylanders and 5,200 D.C. residents lost their benefits when the extensions ended.

Congress's inaction has been accompanied by a growing sentiment among lawmakers that long-term unemployment benefits create a disincentive for the jobless to find work.

"Workers are less likely to look for work, or accept less-than-ideal jobs, as long as they are protected from the full consequences of being unemployed," said Michael D. Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. "That is not to say that anyone is getting rich off unemployment, or that unemployed people are lazy. But it is simple human nature that people are a little less motivated as long as a check is coming in."

That was disputed by Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, who cited a recent study ordered by congressional Democrats. "These benefits do not inhibit job seekers from vigorously looking for or accepting work," she said.

The growing backlash against unemployment insurance has left the 99ers with few political advocates. President Obama, buffeted by GOP criticism of his economic policies as unemployment rates hover at their highest levels in 28 years, has been struggling to win support for renewing the extended jobless benefits. Consequently, any help for the 99ers is off the table, at least for now -- leaving them angry at their political leaders.

"President Obama talks a lot about making the victims of the gulf disaster whole, but what about the victims of this economic disaster?" Frazee said. "Nowadays, he seems mostly concerned with image. Now, he doesn't want to be seen as a big spender. But people need help."

A 34-year-old resident of Vienna, Va., named Brian, who withheld his last name because of his embarrassment about being out of work, worked in corporate finance for nine years before being laid off three years ago. He exhausted his unemployment benefits long ago and has been living off savings and credit. "Before this, I figured that if you can't find a job in two years, you're not looking," he said. "But I keep looking and jobs just are not there. The economy is not recovering. It's being propped up by government spending. But when that ends, I think this whole mess is not over with."

Here in Toms River, Frazee has not earned a regular paycheck since working as a $75,000-a-year laborer during the construction of the Borgata hotel in Atlantic City. That was in July 2008, just as the economy was imploding -- and just after he was returning to health after having a cancerous appendix removed.

Since then, he has not worked, save for a recent four-day stint cleaning up a construction site at a nearby state college. He has fallen behind on mortgage payments for his sunny townhouse, and he is staring at the prospect of foreclosure even after negotiating a loan modification with his lender, Wells Fargo.

Most of the time, Frazee said, he has been confident that things would work out, if only because they always have. He started as a construction worker after his father's endorsement helped him land a spot in the Laborers' International Union Local 415 shortly after he graduated from Toms River South High School in 1978.

When he wasn't working construction, he had jobs on oil rigs off the coast of Santa Barbara, Calif., and in the Gulf of Mexico. He also was a bounty hunter. "I've never been one to feel sorry for myself," he said. "I've always worked."

Until now. The longer he is out of a job, the more unemployable he feels. He suspects that potential employers are turned off by his age and by the fact that he has been out of work for so long. But he is moving near the top of the hiring list for his union. And in the meantime, he has been buying mail-order children's quartz watches from China and selling them on consignment at local convenience stores. He clears close to $3 per watch.

"I'm a union construction worker, but I think I can be a hell of a salesman," Frazee said. "A lot of the stores around here are owned by Indian Americans, and they like me. They're taking my watches. Maybe India and China are going to help me out of this jam if my country won't."

Extension of Unemployment Benefits = Economic Stimulus

Obstruction By Congressional Republicans Threatens Economic Recovery and Jobs
July 7th, 2010 


Senate Republicans have repeatedly obstructed job creation legislation that extended critical unemployment insurance benefits to help Americans who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own make ends meet as they look for their next job opportunity. The Republican obstruction is unprecedented—since 1959, Congress has never let extended unemployment benefits expire when unemployment is over 7.2%. Last week, the House once again passed urgently-needed legislation to extend unemployment benefits for millions of American families—nearly 80% of House Republicans voted against the bill.


When asked about the bill at her weekly press conference last week, Speaker Pelosi explained that extending unemployment benefits is not only the right thing to do, but it is also a boost to our economy:

When the economy turns down, there is a compact that we have that there is unemployment insurance for those who, through no fault of their own, lose their job, and we owe them that. It is a safety net, not just for those individuals but for our whole system, our whole system.
…
Now, let me say about unemployment insurance, we talk about it as a safety net and the rest. This is one of the biggest stimuli to our economy. Economists will tell you this money is spent quickly. It injects demand into the economy, and it is job creating. It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name because, again, it is money that is needed for families to survive, and it is spent. So it has a double benefit. It helps those who have lost their jobs, but it also is a job creator.

Analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) finds that extending unemployment benefits is one of the most cost-effective and fast-acting ways to stimulate the economy. Moreover, economists agree that extending these benefits will create jobs and decrease the chances of slipping back into a double dip recession.
Congressional Budget Office:

Policies that could be implemented relatively quickly or targeted toward people whose consumption tends to be restricted by their income, such as reducing payroll taxes for firms that increase payroll or increasing aid to the unemployed, would have the largest effects on output and employment per dollar of budgetary cost in 2010 and 2011.

Mark Zandi, Chief Economist, Moody’s Analytics:

No form of the fiscal stimulus has proved more effective during the past two years than emergency UI benefits, providing a bang for the buck of 1.61—that is, for every $1 in UI benefits, GDP one year later is increased by an estimated $1.61…

Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize-Winning Economist, New York Times:

…One main reason there aren’t enough jobs right now is weak consumer demand. Helping the unemployed, by putting money in the pockets of people who badly need it, helps support consumer spending. That’s why the Congressional Budget Office rates aid to the unemployed as a highly cost-effective form of economic stimulus. And unlike, say, large infrastructure projects, aid to the unemployed creates jobs quickly - while allowing that aid to lapse, which is what is happening right now, is a recipe for even weaker job growth, not in the distant future but over the next few months…

Alan Blinder, Former Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve:

Blinder also supports the effort to extend expiring unemployment benefits, which has stalled in Congress.
“Extending unemployment benefits is one of the best forms of stimulus we know,” he says.

Heather Boushey, Senior Economist, Center for American Progress, Christine Riordan, Policy Analyst, National Employment Law Project, Luke Reidenbach, American Progress:

Unemployment benefits prevent sharp declines in consumption, and by putting money directly into the hands of those most likely to spend it, unemployment benefits help turn around the weak consumer demand that is plaguing the private sector today, keeping Americans in their jobs and creating demand for new jobs for the currently unemployed.

Ralph Martire, Executive Director, Center for Tax and Budget Accountability:

… the amount of private sector economic activity stimulated by unemployment benefits is greater than any other fiscal action government can take. In fact, dollar-for-dollar, it’s five times more stimulative than the Bush tax cuts.
… Short-term, deficit spending — particularly on things like unemployment insurance, food stamps, housing assistance and the like — is creating jobs and saving the U.S. economy from disaster…

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

Temporary increases in unemployment insurance benefits score high in “bang-for-the-buck” calculations of their economic impact as stimulus. The money gets spent fast and its effects spread through the economy. As a result of such policies, local businesses are less apt to lay off workers and cut back on orders from their suppliers during a downturn; and in the early stages of a recovery, they are more apt to hire additional workers and step up their orders.

William Black, Economics Professor, University of Missouri-Kansas City:

[William] Black said the Senate needs to pass an unemployment benefits extension despite the cost to the nation’s debt.
“If you put the country into a deeper recession, tax revenues will fall and you’ll have an even deeper debt,” he said.

Diane Lim Rogers, Chief Economist, Concord Coalition:

Hey, let’s get real: extended unemployment benefits are an effective form of stimulus spending, and although they do add to the short-term deficit, they are not part of the longer-term deficit problem…
Let’s face it: those who use their “worry” about our longer-term fiscal outlook as a reason to oppose extended unemployment benefits don’t want to reduce the deficit as much as they want to get rid of unemployment benefits.

Why the Idiocy About Unemployment?

by Les Leopold | Sunday, July 11, 2010 | Huffington Post

My wife, a labor economist, is upset with NPR's "The Take Away" (and many other news programs) for reinforcing the myth that somehow the unemployed are to blame for not having a job. We all should be angry as well because the jobs just aren't there. In fact, the latest unemployment statistics show that there are five unemployed workers available for every vacant job. Why blame workers when it's so clear that Wall Street's reckless gambling caused the jobs crisis?

By now, you'd think we'd have buried this issue. But like Dracula it refuses to die. And so, I return to the subject with the hope of driving a stake through its heart and giving it a proper burial. Among the claims we need to put to rest:

1. Extended unemployment benefits are causing unemployment. Extending benefits for the long-term unemployed will only encourage them to sit at home on their extended derrieres and let vacant jobs go begging.

What jobs? We're down 8 million since the start of the Great Recession. We aren't even creating enough new jobs to keep up with population growth. So what jobs are the unemployed not taking?

Every child knows how to play musical chairs. When you take away 8 million chairs, a lot of people are forced to scrounge around looking for seats that aren't there. Providing nourishment for the chairless is not the cause of the disappearing chairs. It's just the decent thing to do.

Why is this so difficult to grasp? And why are so many people angry at the long-term unemployed and not at the bankers who actually created this mess?

Economist Dean Baker suggests that the Republicans are trying to keep unemployment as high as possible right now because they think that high jobless numbers will spell disaster for the Democrats in November. And if we give the unemployed extended benefits, that money will act as a stimulus, generating more jobs. Well, we can't have that! It's better for the Republicans if the economy stays in the ditch.

But what about Obama and the Democrats? Why aren't they at the barricades, fighting for the unemployed? They could be flooding the talk shows with a raucous defense of the jobless. They could be putting ads up all over the country, explaining why the long-term unemployed deserve our support. They ought to be ridiculing any politician or pundit who argues against jobless benefits. Where the hell is their outrage?

Instead, even as the unemployment crisis continues, the Democrats are pushing austerity and deficit reduction--the financial industry's pet issue. If the Democrats are so worried about unemployment benefits deepening the deficit they should start plugging that money hole by raising taxes on billionaire hedge funds executives. Just ask the billionaires to pay the same income tax rates as the rest of us, instead of dodging behind the lower capital gains rate. Is that really such a hard sell, Democrats? If the public knew that the top ten hedge fund managers were averaging $900,000 an hour (not a typo) during the worst economic year since the Depression--and paying lower income tax rates than the rest of us--the American public would be outraged. Of course, to push this plan the politicians would need to have the guts to upset billionaires.

(Meanwhile, Timothy Geithner is signaling that the Administration will hold down capital gains taxes on the super-rich.)

But even the gutless ought to know that blaming the unemployed for unemployment is insane --not to mention incredibly mean-spirited.

2. Unemployment is caused by "structural" problems in the labor markets. Labor markets have to be freed from constraints like decent pensions, a reasonable retirement age, and adequate health care benefits. These public benefits -sometimes known as the social wage -- are keeping employers from hiring. So, sorry, Americans, we'll just have to work longer and harder for less.
This chilling proposal, now on the lips of Republicans and Democrats alike, will clearly make the markets happy. But what about the rest of us?

Is this grim belt-tightening really going to bring back the 8 million jobs we lost?

If we cut the social wage, corporations certainly will save on labor costs and accumulate more cash. But will they productively invest it? Not according to Yves Smith and Rob Parenteau, They argue that corporate America greatly prefers to pocket the cash and use it for gambling on Wall Street:

To develop new products, buy new equipment or expand geographically, an enterprise has to spend money -- on marketing research, product design, prototype development, legal expenses associated with patents, lining up contractors and so on. Rather than incur such expenses, companies increasingly prefer to pay their executives exorbitant bonuses, or issue special dividends to shareholders, or engage in purely financial speculation. But this means they also short-circuit a major driver of economic growth.

3. The only real jobs are private sector jobs. You see, only the private sector can rescue our economy because the jobs they create spring from consumer supply and demand, not the dictates of corrupt or know-it-all politicians. When you work for the public sector, you're practically on the dole because your wages come from tax dollars. That's quasi-socialism.

Has anyone noticed that private industry has been on the public dole for decades? We have millions of alleged private sector jobs funded by the Defense Department and through subsidies for industries from sugar to oil, and of course banking. We've given so many tax dodges to corporate America that most companies pay almost no taxes at all. The idea of a purely private sector is pure fiction, a soothing fairy tale for Tea Partiers and faith-based, free-market ideologues.

Despite all the perks we've been giving to corporate America, it's not at all clear that the private sector will ever again create enough decent jobs to support a middle class society in this country. Right now the economy is supposedly growing, but employment isn't. So what is growing? Well, the obscene bonuses and pay packages of corporate America and Wall Street --- the only growth that counts for our financial elites.

We're at a critical point in the jobs crisis. Nearly 30 million of us don't have jobs or have been forced into part-time jobs. It's not like there's no work to do. We have millions and millions of kids to educate. We desperately need to slash our energy use--and with an army of workers, we could weatherize every home and business in the country. Our bridges and roads will take decades to repair. We need to build an entire national system of efficient public transit.

When Wall Street is in trouble, we come to the rescue with trillions in bailouts. We've poured hundreds of billions more into two wars. But when it comes to investing in our people to get needed work done, we can't seem to summon the will or find the cash.

There's a one-sided war going on between financial elites and the rest of us. They've engineered the economy to enrich themselves at our expense, with Wall Street taking the lead.

The numbers don't lie: In 1970 the top 100 CEOs earned approximately $45 for every dollar earned by the average worker. By last year, it was $1,081 to one. (See The Looting of America.)

There is no economic theory that can explain this obscene gap. It has nothing to do with talent or productivity or even luck. It's just raw power. And the only thing that financial power understands is countervailing power in the form of a popular mass movement - a movement that only can start once we stop blaming ourselves for the jobs crisis.

We have our work cut out for us.

Staring Down Desperation

The Senate’s failure to extend unemployment benefits has left 30,000 jobless here in Mass. with nothing coming in
by Robert Gavin | Sunday, July 11, 2010 | The Boston Globe

Until he lost his job, Jim MacPherson figures, he had worked every day of his life since he was 15. Now, after 18 months of desperately seeking new work, MacPherson is among the estimated 2.1 million US workers, including 30,000 in Massachusetts, who have been without jobless benefits since Congress allowed an extension of the federal program to expire in early June.

This week, with unemployment still at its highest level in more than a quarter-century and hiring down to a crawl, the US Senate will try again to break a stalemate over extending through Nov. 30 the emergency benefits that allowed unemployed workers to collect for up to 99 weeks. The legislation has become tied up in deficit politics, with Republicans, including Senator Scott Brown, insisting that the $33 billion cost of the extension not be added to the nation's burgeoning debt. Brown has proposed legislation that he says would pay for the benefits with unspent stimulus funds.

Some Republicans and economists have even argued that the time has come to end the extensions, which they say is providing incentives to turn down work.

"If the goal is to get people back to work, why tie the money to the condition that you stay unemployed?'' said David Tuerck, executive director of the conservative Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University.

But other economists say hiring remains so weak and unemployment so high that extensions will provide much-needed support for the economy.

"The vast majority of unemployed are hard-pressed to find a job, and the risks of not passing the extensions are too great,'' said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics in West Chester, Pa. "It could reignite the foreclosure crisis, and if the economy swamps again, there is no response.''

In the meantime, those who have lost benefits are clinging to the hope that they'll find new jobs while wondering how they'll pay mortgages, keep food on the table, or send children to college. Here are some of their stories.

■ ■ ■

The desire to work was never a problem for Jim MacPherson. He spent 28 years at the same construction equipment rental company, putting in 10- to 12-hour days. When the firm laid him off at the end of 2008, he had 29 unused personal days.

But MacPherson, 51, of Holbrook, has found that desire is not enough. He has sent out scores of resumes; networked with colleagues, friends, and friends of friends; and tried to transfer his purchasing and inventory management skills to other industries. Recently, he thought he might get an offer from a local hospital - until administrators imposed a hiring freeze.

MacPherson also thought he would get another extension to his unemployment benefits, which ran out two weeks ago. "It's not a matter of giving people money,'' he said. "It's giving us more time, because the jobs are not there.''

For MacPherson, whose wife works on a per diem basis at South Shore Hospital in Weymouth, the loss of benefits is making a tough situation tougher. The father of three, MacPherson drained his savings to cover health insurance costs, particularly important because his 13-year-old daughter has diabetes.

Already, MacPherson said, he and his family are doing all they can to make ends meet. When MacPherson takes his daughter to Children's Hospital in Boston for diabetes treatments, he donates platelets to get free parking and save $15. He has even participated in four nutritional studies at Tufts University, earning $500 for each.

Soon, he said, he'll have to tap into his retirement account to pay the mortgage. Meanwhile, his oldest daughter, 17, is increasingly stressed about the cost of college. MacPherson keeps trying to assure her that he'll find a way.

"The unemployment checks meant I could pay my mortgage and keep food on the table,'' he said. "Right now, I am just trying to keep a positive outlook that tomorrow will bring that phone call.''

■ ■ ■

After she was laid off from her job of 16 years, the easiest thing for Karen Bureau of Methuen would have been just to stay home. Diagnosed with muscular dystrophy at 12, and dependent on a motorized wheelchair and home health aides, it takes her up to three hours to wash, dress, and get ready to leave the house.

But during 15 months of unemployment, Bureau, who was assistant director of a Lawrence nonprofit, has not been content to stay at home. Day in and day out, she clambers into her modified minivan, aided by a chair lift, and heads to interviews, the local career center, or volunteer work, which she does in part to build connections that might lead to a job.

"It takes a lot of energy,'' said Bureau, 42. "But I didn't come this far to be unemployed.''

Despite her efforts, Bureau is still without a job, and has been without her unemployment benefits of $554 a week since the end of June. Unless a job comes through soon - she's in the running for a position at a local social service agency - or Congress approves the benefit extensions, she could lose her house, a ranch-style home that she renovated to make it accessible.

"Unemployment benefits have been my lifeline,'' said Bureau, who lives alone. "It's becoming a question of whether I go into foreclosure or a short sale. It's difficult not knowing what step to take next.''

Bureau, who holds a bachelor's degree and master's level certificate in human services management, had never been out of work before her layoff in the spring of last year. She said she doesn't understand how Congress could take a weeklong recess when so many like her are unsure if they'll be able to keep their homes. In the meantime, she said, she'll keep looking and hoping.

"I'm determined to find something,'' she said. "I want to be out amongst people. I want to be working.''

■ ■ ■

Tom Bergendahl has been sending out an average of four resumes a week for two years. A few weeks ago, he seemed close to getting a contract job with a financial services firm, when at the last minute, the company decided to use existing employees. "It vanished right before my eyes,'' he said.

Also gone are the $502-a-week unemployment checks, which he had expected to last, if necessary, through October. As a result, Bergendahl, the father of two teenage sons, is burning through what savings he has left, hoping his job search succeeds before the money runs out.

"The unemployment benefits,'' he said, "were a helping hand in a time of real financial stress.''

Bergendahl lost his contract job with State Street Corp. in the summer of 2008. With a fair amount of savings, and believing he would soon find work, he didn't file for unemployment until March 2009.

Now, with his wife working part time, he has had to take financial help from relatives. His family has cut back where they could. Summer vacation will be a low-cost camping trip without Bergendahl, who will stay home to look for jobs.

"I try to be as upbeat as possible,'' he said. "The economy is going to get better. This can't last forever - I hope.''

■ ■ ■

It took 20 years of night school, one class at a time, but in May 2009, Donna Rafferty finally earned the bachelor's degree in human services she thought would advance her career. A month later, she was laid off from the social services agency where she answered a referral line.

Since then, Rafferty has had to lower her sights from the case manager job she hoped her degree would bring. Sending out more than 250 resumes, she has applied for clerical and administrative jobs in a variety of industries, even fast-food restaurants. No luck.

"As time goes on, it gets more discouraging,'' said Rafferty, 58, of Jamaica Plain. "I've had two interviews, and both times came in the top three, but that doesn't make me feel any better.''

Making things worse: her sole income, $420 a week in unemployment benefits, ended last month.

Rafferty, who is single, said she has always lived frugally, aided by the modest mortgage on the condominium she bought in 1998 for $75,000. She figures she has enough savings to get through August. After that, she said, "I'll hit the panic button.''

In the meantime, she is making daily visits to career centers to search job listings, sending out more resumes, and calling "anyone who's given me a business card.'' She's even dropping by companies in the hope of persuading someone to hire her.

"I'm doing everything I can, but there's just not that many jobs out there,'' she said. "I'm trying to understand what Congress is doing. This is not the time to teach government to stop spending when it's working people who need the help.''

Deficit hawks wrong to nix jobless benefits extension

THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER

George W. Bush’s administration was many things, but fiscally responsible wasn’t one of them. After inheriting a balanced budget and declining federal deficits from Bill Clinton, the Bush administration decided to pursue the disastrous path of intentionally cutting federal revenue — by cutting taxes — while simultaneously increasing spending significantly, primarily to pursue wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Bush administration ended up financing both the wars and tax cuts by borrowing — the height of irresponsible fiscal policy.

Then the recession hit, devastating the economy during Bush’s final year, causing tax revenue to plummet just as the need for increased public spending skyrocketed. In response, Bush implemented numerous costly initiatives to bail out the financial industry and others, again financed with debt.

Given that backdrop, it’s interesting to see the sudden surge in deficit hawks populating both major political parties — especially since many of them previously supported the fiscal missteps of the Bush administration. It’d be great if this newfound concern with all things deficit presaged a thoughtful, bipartisan approach to implementing sound fiscal policy designed to meet the real economic exigencies facing our county. Yeah, that’d be great. It’s also unlikely.

That’s because most deficit concerns being raised are motivated far more by politics than any desire to pass good policy. So much so that facts are being intentionally distorted or ignored while fiscally immaterial, short-term initiatives are wrongly being castigated as creating material, long-term issues. Nothing illustrates this deficit folderol better than the debate over whether to extend the time period for claiming unemployment insurance benefits.

The UI program is intended to ensure the unemployed have a little something to cover living expenses while looking for work. In fact, demonstrating that you’re actively seeking a job is a condition to being eligible for UI benefits, which currently average a meager $293 per week. In normal times, a person can generally receive UI benefits for a maximum of 26 weeks, or just over six months. In extraordinarily difficult times, the feds have extended the benefit period.

Today, of America’s 15 million unemployed workers, almost half, 6.9 million or 46 percent, have already been unemployed more than six months, the highest percentage suffering from long-term unemployment since the feds first began monitoring it in 1948. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of extending UI benefits to those unemployed long term will be $40 billion through November. Deficit hawks claim government can’t afford this, given the deficit already eclipses $1 trillion. Some even maintain extending UI is counterproductive because — get this — it encourages the unemployed to avoid taking jobs so they can keep receiving that great benefit check from the feds. Time for a reality check.

Start with the cost of the extension — $40 billion. Sure, that’s a lot of money in the abstract. In context of the federal deficit, however, not so much. In fact, it’s just 3 percent of the fiscal year 2010 deficit. Compare that to the $450 billion cost this year for the Bush administration’s tax cuts, plus the interest on the federal debt incurred to finance those tax cuts and the wars. Those Bush policies are more than 11 times costlier than extending UI and account for more than 40 percent of the current deficit.

Oh, and according to Citizens for Tax Justice, 70 percent of Bush’s tax break — or just over $200 billion in fiscal 2010 — goes to the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans. Certainly, helping everyday folks who’ve lost jobs put food on the table and sleep indoors is worth one-fifth of the welfare given to the wealthiest by Bush’s tax cuts. Moreover, the $40 billion for extending UI is a one-time, short-term cost, while the Bush tax cuts are long-term, recurring costs that drill holes in the budget every single year, are the greatest single cause of the long-term deficit and account for more of the problem than the recession and Barack Obama’s stimulus programs combined.

As for the contention that extending UI encourages people to avoid finding jobs so they can stay on the public dole — well, it’s just plain goofy. In May 2010, the private sector created only 41,000 jobs. That’s 72,000 less than what’s needed to keep up with the demand generated by natural work-force growth, much less creating the positions needed for the unemployed to find work. No one’s thumbing a nose at getting hired to live in luxury eating government cheese — there simply are no private sector jobs available.

Perhaps the hawks have forgotten that consumer spending accounts for more than two-thirds of the nation’s economy. The best consumers are low- and middle-income folks, who don’t earn enough to save, so they spend their paychecks. That is, when they have paychecks. See, if they’ve lost their jobs and the private sector isn’t creating jobs and the feds cut off unemployment benefits, their ability to spend drops to, well, nil. Which is why the amount of private sector economic activity stimulated by unemployment benefits is greater than any other fiscal action government can take. In fact, dollar-for-dollar, it’s five times more stimulative than the Bush tax cuts.

Sure, the long-term deficit has to be dealt with — but honestly and responsibly. Short-term, deficit spending — particularly on things like unemployment insurance, food stamps, housing assistance and the like — is creating jobs and saving the U.S. economy from disaster.

Ralph Martire is executive director of the Center for Tax and Budget Accountability, a bipartisan fiscal policy think tank. His e-mail address is rmartire@ctbaonline.org.

The Party of Unemployment and Corporate Special Interests (2 stories)

(You know, I think both parties are comprised of corporatist dicks beholden to their big money masters instead of the needs of the people. But right now, today, the elephant does seem to be sucking the corporate phallus a little bit harder than the donkeys. I still don't trust either party to steer us clear of this depression in which we have already entered, but give the people a break, GOP!--jef)

***

The Republican's Strategy
By DEAN BAKER

From now until November 2, the Republican Party will be the party of unemployment. The logic is straightforward; the more people who are unemployed on Election Day, the better the prospects for Republicans in the fall election. They expect, with good cause, that voters will hold the Democrats responsible for the state of the economy. Therefore anything that the Republicans can do to make the economy worse between now and then will help their election prospects.

While it might be bad taste to accuse a major national political party of deliberately wanting to throw people out of jobs, there is no other plausible explanation for the Republicans’ behavior. The Republicans have balked at supporting nearly every bill that had any serious hope of creating or keeping jobs, most recently filibustering on bills that provided aid to state and local governments and extending unemployment benefits. The result of the Republicans’ actions, unless they are reversed quickly, is that hundreds of thousands more workers will be thrown out of work by Election Day.

The story is straightforward. Nearly every state and local government across the country is looking at large budget shortfalls for their 2011 fiscal years, most of which begin July 1, 2010. Since they are generally required by state constitutions or local charters to balance their budgets, they will have no choice except to raise taxes and/or make large cutbacks and layoff workers to bring spending and revenue into line.

State and local governments have cut their workforce by an average of 65,000 a month over the last three months. Without substantial aid from the federal government this pace is likely accelerate. The Republican agenda in blocking aid to the states may add another 300,000 people to the unemployment roles by early November

The blockage of extended unemployment benefits promises similar dividends. Unemployment benefits are not just about providing income support to those who are out of work, they also provide a boost to the economy. Since unemployed workers generally have little other than their benefits to support themselves, this is money that will almost immediately be spent. The benefits paid to workers are income to food stores and other retail outlets.

Unemployment insurance provides the sort of boost to demand that the economy desperately needs. That is why neutral parties like the Congressional Budget Office or economist Mark Zandi, a top advisor to John McCain’s presidential bid, always list unemployment benefits as one of the best forms of stimulus.

Republicans give two reasons for opposing benefits. First, they claim that benefits discourage people from working. Second, they object that the Democrats’ proposal will add to the national debt.

On the first point there is a considerable amount of economic research. Most indicates that in periods when the economy is operating near its capacity more generous benefits may modestly increase the unemployment rate. However, they are less likely to have that effect now. The reason is simple; the economy does not have enough jobs. The latest data from the Labor Department show that there are five unemployed workers for every job opening.

In this context, unemployment benefits may give some workers the option to remain unemployed longer to find a job that better fits their skills, but they are unlikely to affect the total number of unemployed. In other words, a $300 weekly unemployment check may allow an experienced teacher the luxury of looking for another teaching job rather than being forced to grab a job at Wal-Mart.

However, if the teacher took the job at Wal-Mart, then this would simply displace a recent high school grad who has no other job opportunities. That might be a great turn of events in Republican-econ land, but it does not reduce the overall unemployment rate, nor does it benefit the overall economy in any obvious way.

The other argument the Republicans give is that these bills would add to the national debt. For example, the latest extension of unemployment benefits would have added $22 billion to the debt by the end of 2011. This means that the debt would be $9,807,000,000 instead of 9,785,000,000 at the end of fiscal 2011, an increase of the debt to GDP ratio from 65.3 percent to 65.4 percent.

It is possible that Congressional Republicans, who were willing to vote for hundreds of billions of dollars of war expenditures without paying for them, or trillions of dollars of tax cuts without paying for them, are actually concerned about this sort of increase in the national debt. It is possible that this is true, but not very plausible.

The more likely explanation is that the Republicans want to block anything that can boost the economy and create jobs. Throwing people out of work may not be pretty, but politics was never pretty, and it is getting less so by the day.

***

GOP, Proud Defenders of Corporate Interests

by Devona Walker | July 7, 2010

Democrats may not exactly be the people’s party, but the GOP is the corporate darling and that should be enough to motivate progressives to vote

The Washington Post reported there is an apparent revolt among the big money donors on Wall Street against the Democrats. Democratic contributions are down 65 percent from two years ago, the post aptly reports.

It stems from pending financial regulatory reform, which House Democrats passed last week with almost no Republican support.

But the cable network talking heads conveniently fail to mention, while saying it is because the Obama administration and Democrats “don’t understand business,” is the reason behind this is blatantly obvious.
In the months leading up to financial reform, since the financial meltdown, Republicans are obviously just getting paid for all their obstruction. The Republicans continue to be — despite their tea party hype, despite all the angry populist musings, despite that a fair chunk of their constituents live in poverty — the Corporate party. The party of limited government involvement and oversight into the financial market, the party of “drill, baby drill,” the party that put an oil and natural gas executive in the White House, the party that oppresses poor people and props up the rich.

This is the party that passed the Wall Street bailout. It is the party that made it nearly impossible for individual consumers to effectively file for bankruptcy while insuring that investors, when a company goes belly up, are shored up.

The differences between the parties could not be more poignant and critical today. And it’s not because the Democrats are good but because the Republicans are EVIL!

You might not like President Obama. You might not like Harry Reid. The question is, how screwed would we be if the Republicans were to regain control? Sharon Angle anyone?

Let me spell it out.

• Exponentially more offshore drilling and raping of our natural resources with nothing but apologies to the big corporations as they ruin the environment.
• No significant environmentally-conscientious energy legislation ever.
• Creationism not evolution taught as science in every K-12 school in this country.
• Texas-style rewrites of American history gone national.
• Glenn Beck would have a cabinet position and Rush Limbaugh would be the new White House Press Secretary.
• No drawdowns, to timelines, just more troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
• No rules of the road for Wall Street and financial institutions.
• Lower taxes for the rich.
• Repeal of health care reform.
• Elimination of Social Security.
• More ultra conservative Supreme court Judicial appointment — which will inevitably lead to the repeal of Roe v. Wade. This will cause the unintended and unwanted births of thousands of children each year who will be abused, neglected and impoverished.
• The passage of a new Patriot Act. This one designed specifically to weed out “anti-American” Americans. Bill authored by Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann.
• Drastically scaled back government spending to boost the economy, huge increases in government spending on new military conflicts and 20th century military technology (like massive Cold War era fighter planes that are absolutely useless except that they make the military brass as giddy as school girls).
• The possibility that someone even dumber that George W. Bush (Sarah Palin) will occupy the White House.
• No repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. In fact, there might be a constitutional amendment to ban all gays, even the hidden ones, from joining the military.
• A 24-foot wall on the U.S. Mexican border and 24-hour brigade of armed guards posted 12-feet apart with orders to shoot anything that moves, costing about $200 billion per year. Contract awarded to Blackwater.

“Democrats worked hard to pass reform with tough oversight ***(oh, really? where is it, then?--jef)***, accountability and regulation, and it’s no secret the big banks were against it,” said Deirdre Murphy, spokeswoman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “But we believe preventing another financial collapse is the responsible thing to do, and at the end of the day, we will have the resources we need to compete in our targeted states, as will our candidates.”

Republicans generally think very poorly of the poorer elements of their base as clearly evidenced by the leaked fundraising primer labeling Obama “the Joker” and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “Cruella DeVille.” They know there is an element of their base that is driven entirely by fear and biogtry. They assume these folks will not remember, make any logical connection or care that it was the Republican party who administered the Wall Street bailouts. In fact, some ads are already making the false claim that the bailouts happened on Obama’s watch. They assume their people won’t really make the logical connection between whose funding their campaigns and whose interests they are looking out for while in office. But the only Republican constituency that really matters to the GOP are the wealthy, the corporations, Wall street bankers, the insurance and oil and gas industry, etc. If you think you are a populist and you vote Republican, you are an idiot.