Well... This is not what I pictured for my first post in the blogging world with Brett Boothe, but it just couldn't wait. Later today or tomorrow, I am going to write my retroactive introductory post on what the "arena" actual is and represents. So in case anyone cares, here we go:
Sometimes you have to take an argument out to an extreme in order to reveal the principle. The extension of unemployment benefits that was just considered on the Senate Floor and struck down with no republican support and with Ben Nelson dissenting sent liberal pundits just spinning. Here is a clip from Ed Schulz:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL9nSWGocPw
Here is my question… Would anyone out there agree to give indefinite unemployment benefits to a person out of work? Obviously, even some of the most liberal pundits wouldn’t agree that it is prudent or fiscally responsible to extend benefits to someone up to 2, 3, 10, 20 years until they find a job. Now, we unveil the principle of the argument: Where does government stop in providing a safety net to the jobless?
Settled law (http://jobsearch.about.com/cs/unemployment/a/unemployment.htm) says that a person can collect unemployment benefits for up to 26 weeks or approximately half a year. The reason is to give a minimum safety net to let a person have sufficient time to find adequate employment. During times of high unemployment, you can get an extension up to 13 weeks. The Democrats (and Republicans) have responded to the recession by extending unemployment benefits for up to 99 weeks or approximately two years. Faced with the floor debate to extend them once more, the Republicans finally said no in the face of screaming pundits like Ed Schulz. So, my question to Ed is since you won’t agree to give indefinite benefits to the unemployed, when does it stop? At what point in the recovery is it right to not extend unemployment benefits? Does the GDP have to be growing by more than 5%, 6% or 10%? Does the unemployment rate have to be below 8%, 7%, or 5%? Does a certain percentage of people on benefits have to have found adequate employment? If so, what is that percentage? What if 70% come off benefits and find a job? But, what about the other 30%? At some point, Ed would have to end the extension leaving thousands out of help. So, is he immoral? A hate-monger? Does he not care about the unemployed? Does that make him different than the angry GOPers who cut it off too soon? Or… Is he just emotional? We have seen what happens when the country and its leaders get emotional—Patriot Act, TARP, the Stimulus, you name it. The principle of the matter is that settled law cannot always be circumstantial and based on emotion.
We will discuss the merits of the government’s role in unemployment benefits and many other topics in the days and weeks to come.
Blake
2 comments:
My problem with overextending unemployment benefits is that the cost to pay for the program has to come from somewhere. It seems that in theory, a portion of the tax paid by the working goes directly to the unemployed. Although our government is good at spending money it doesn’t have and kicking the debt bucket on down the road to the next generation, we can still agree that to finance an extension of unemployment benefits will cost money, and that money has to come from somewhere. The ones footing the bill will be the employed and the employers. While a short term extension could be put in place within this recession, the question that is raised and well placed is, when does it stop? Based on historical evidence it is blatantly obvious that it won’t stop. How many times have entitlements and tax increases been passed on temporary grounds but found a way to linger around and become permanent? More often than not. So it’s safe to assume that if the unemployment benefits are to be extended, it will end up being permanent. Leaving a bill that has to be paid. A bill that will inevitably be paid by increased taxation in some form. But what happens when tax burdens increase during a recession? The unemployment lines get a little longer.
So, even though it sounds like a noble idea to extend a helping hand to those who have encountered hard times during an economic downturn, the results of increased spending would be counterproductive. I’m not saying that the unemployed should receive no assistance but as it stands now, the government will provide benefits for nearly 6 months in normal conditions. That seems to be a pretty generous offering.
I won’t even touch some other ideas and policies that have effects on unemployment, ranging from the current corporate tax burdens to the restrictions of minimum wages but I will say, increasing unemployment burdens would be a shorted sighted fix on a short term problem at the expense of long term prosperity.
Lets look at the history of unemployment benefits in hard times:
Unemployment benefit program 1991-1994
Original proposed program length: 8 months
Original estimated cost $7 billion
Actual length: 29 months
Actual cost: $39 billion
Number of extensions: 5
Unemployment rate at start of program: 7 percent
U rate at end: 6.4 percent
Unemployment benefit program 2002-2004
Original proposed program length: 10 months
Original estimated cost $9 billion
Actual length: 29 months
Actual cost: $26 billion
Number of extensions: 2
Unemployment rate at start of program: 5.7 percent
U rate at end: 5.8 percent
Unemployment benefit program 2008
Original proposed program length: 11 months
Original estimated cost $10 billion
Actual length: ? months
Actual cost: ? billion
Number of extensions: ?
Unemployment rate at start of program: 5 percent
U rate at end: ?
I don't write the mail. I just deliver it.
Blake
Post a Comment