Posted on 12/03/2012 8:41:41 PM PST by DeaconBenjamin
Amid the fervor over the fiscal cliff in Washington, there’s one federal program also facing a Dec. 31, 2012 deadline that if allowed to pass could cost unemployed Americans thousands of dollars and deprive states of crucial federal funding that’s helped them weather the worst of the Great Recession.
At the end of this year, unemployment benefits that were greatly expanded during the recession are set to expire unless Congress acts to extend them. All told, more than $250 billion has been spent toward unemployment benefits over the past five years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It’s estimated more than 2 million Americans are currently receiving the expanded benefits and the total cost reached $94 billion in the last fiscal year alone.
Now, though, the debate over extending the jobless benefits has become mired in negotiations over the fiscal cliff, the mix of spending cuts and tax increases set to take effect Jan. 1, 2013 to lower the federal deficit. The $30 billion price tag for extending the entirety of the expanded benefits is too costly, some deficit-wary lawmakers say. President Barack Obama included the provision in his initial offer to Republicans last week, which they quickly rejected.
The extended benefits allowed unemployed Americans to receive benefits far longer than they usually would have. At its longest, the benefits allowed for 99 weeks of unemployment, compared to just 26 weeks under normal circumstances.
As the recovery took hold, Congress has pared back the more generous benefits depending on a state’s unemployment rate. No state currently offers the full 99 weeks, but all offer some form of extended assistance.
But that could come to an abrupt end at the end of this month, and many worry both the economic benefits and the help they offer the unemployed are being lost in the fiscal cliff debate.
The benefit to the economy, even during the worst of the recession, has been significant. The program is seen as a better stimulus of demand for goods and services than many other initiatives, and the CBO says extending the current benefits for another year would boost the economy and create 300,000 jobs next year alone.
But the stakes are also substantial for states and their budgets. As part of the expanded program, the federal government paid for a significant part of the expansion. Normally a jointly funded state-federal initiative, the additional federal money freed states from having to rely on already-stretched unemployment insurance trust funds to help the unemployed.
Those trust funds are designed to cover unemployment benefits and ebb and flow with the economy. They comprise taxes on both employers and wages, and are meant to remain flush during a strong economy and be drawn down when unemployment spikes.
But they’ve been battered by the recession. States collectively are carrying more than $26 billion in debt and billions more in mounting interest, having borrowed more than $50 billion from Washington in recent years to offset cash-strapped funds. As Stateline previously reported, those debts have already forced many states to scale back benefits even as they continue to face high joblessness.
If the expanded benefits are allowed to expire, advocates warn, it would be not only a significant blow to the unemployed, but also would leave many states with decimated trust funds unable to offer benefits to help those still without a job.
What’s more, current law says states facing a deficit in their trust funds are required to repay that debt or raise taxes to make up the difference. There’s worry such a tax increase could dampen still-weak economic growth.
Faced with this scenario, Congress could enact a one-year “holiday” on both repayment and the required tax increases, something the CBO estimates would cost just $3 billion in the next fiscal year.
But while that would help states and defray some of the economic fallout of the expiring benefits, it wouldn’t save the unemployed currently relying on the expanded benefits. Meanwhile, just allowing those currently receiving benefits to continue into next year could cost as much as $14 billion, the CBO estimates.
Many advocates worry that ultimately, it will be the budgetary realities of the fiscal cliff and federal deficit that dictate what happens to the unemployment benefits rather than consideration of their effect on the jobless, state budgets and the broader economy.
Negotiations between the White House and congressional leaders are expected to continue well into this month as both sides work to avoid the fiscal cliff. How much attention the jobless benefits will received in the broader debate, though, is uncertain.
The jobless should be reminded that under GA’s Jimmy Carter unemployment compensation began to be treated as “ordinary income” for purposes of income taxation.
Get a job!
That's more than would be collected from the upper 2% should their taxes go up.
Wouldn’t ending these endless jobless benefits help the economy long term, by forcing these people to accept work without getting everyone further in debt to China so they can stay at home?
All due respect to the unemployed but this is starting to morph into yet another out of control government welfare program.
I know of at least a dozen people who are basically “riding the wave” and not looking for any kind of work at all while collecting or working under the table and collecting unemployment.
I remember a time when you had to prove you were looking for work every week to get unemployment.
I know of at least 3 union workers. Pipe fitters. The “union” has a deal or two where they are able to rotate workers on a 15 week plus 1 day rotation.
Guess how long they collect unemployment until they are “rotated” back in.
You got it. Right up to the end of the term they can collect. They have been repeating this for at least 3 years.
I finely got sick of the friend and all his pro union and pro Obama BS I told him to stop calling and unfriended him on FB
“I know of at least 3 union workers. Pipe fitters. The “union” has a deal or two where they are able to rotate workers on a 15 week plus 1 day rotation.
Guess how long they collect unemployment until they are “rotated” back in.
You got it. Right up to the end of the term they can collect. They have been repeating this for at least 3 years.
I finely got sick of the friend and all his pro union and pro Obama BS I told him to stop calling and unfriended him on FB”
I may have you one better. I know a union painter/taper that collects UI when he gets laid off as you describe. Works off the books while collecting AND gets MEDICAID coverage while he’s on UI.
More often, when the benefits expire, the unemployed “Get on disability!”
“I finely got sick of the friend and all his pro union and pro Obama BS I told him to stop calling and unfriended him on FB”
It’s been my experience that most unionistas spend more time trying to figure out how to do the least work possible instead of just doing the damned job and getting it done. They are also some of the cheapest people I have ever known. Nobody should make any money but them.
That’s from spending 15 years in a utility union.
and then there is the matter of UE compensation. I read on FR some time ago that some states (with fed money)compensate up to $800 per week (Massachusetts). I believe compensation should adequately take care of basic needs of the unemployed and families, but not a life of luxury.
and then there is the matter of UE compensation. I read on FR some time ago that some states (with fed money)compensate up to $800 per week (Massachusetts). I believe compensation should adequately take care of basic needs of the unemployed and families, but not a life of luxury.
0bama does not need the votes of the unemployed , the welfarers , the food stampers , the medicarers , the unionizers , or any of the 98%ers as he has gotten his way by using up their usefulness . Now he can cut all their bennies and use the money to spend on other more important liberal objectives and blame the cuts on the GOP as he takes US over the fiscal cliff and the accross the board cuts he needs to finance commiecare .
The idea was to bridge the gap until the economy got better. Under just about any other administration it would be better by now. But the Democrats do everything to kill business and growth. I think we have to accept that under the Democrats, high unemployment is the New Normal, and a lot of these people will end up on welfare. It is too expense to employ them in the New Normal. Really, why are we extending the benefits if there is no plan to create jobs - are we just going to keep extending them until a Republican is elected who can improve the economy?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.