House GOP OKs Unemployment Extension

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican leaders say they will extend federal unemployment benefits Thursday, blunting Democratic accusations that the GOP-controlled Congress favors tax cuts for the rich over aid for jobless Americans.

The federal program, providing 13 weeks of emergency benefits to people who exhaust their state aid, is scheduled to expire May 31. Congress adjourns Friday for a holiday recess.

In announcing Wednesday's agreement by Republican House leaders, Rep. Jack Quinn, R-N.Y., said: ``I am certain that unemployed Americans will be able to get through the Memorial Day holiday without having to worry about their benefits expiring on May 31.''

Democrats, eyeing next year's presidential election, are determined to make the poor economy a politically damaging issue for Bush and the Republicans.

The nation's unemployment rate last month jumped to 6 percent, matching an eight-year high. The number of jobless workers surged to 8.8 million.

But the House agreement, and a promise by Senate Republicans to act, helped blunt those attacks.

``We made unemployment simply too hot for Republicans to handle,'' House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said Thursday.

Pelosi criticized Republicans, who have been negotiating an economic stimulus package, saying money in the pockets of jobless Americans would stimulate the economy more than tax cuts that mostly help the rich.

``The job loss continues,'' she said. ``And the disdain for jobless Americans continues on Capitol Hill.''

The GOP House extension proposal would continue the current federal program that provides 13 weeks of benefits to jobless workers who exhaust their state benefits, generally 26 weeks.

Six states with high unemployment would get 26 weeks: Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.

Democrats were hoping for a more generous bill to provide help for the jobless who have already exhausted their benefits.

``We have advocated from the very beginning an extension of unemployment benefits not only for those who are experiencing the loss of those benefits right now, but also for the long-term unemployed who are suffering and who simply don't have recourse if we don't extend these benefits,'' said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D.

Without action by Congress, about 80,000 people each week who exhaust all their state benefits after May 31 would not get federal emergency benefits.

``We've got 20,000 people who could lose benefits in two weeks without an extension,'' said Jen Burita, spokeswoman for Rep. Jennifer Dunn, R-Wash., sponsor of the Republican plan.

Washington state released its latest state unemployment figures Wednesday, showing the rate had climbed to 7.3 percent in April - which is third behind Oregon at 8 percent and Alaska at 7.4 percent.

YOu sound like the same person who found it hard to believe that companies discriminated against black workers with no economic reason for it. YOu sound like the same person who found it hard to believe that companies discriminate against female workers with no economic reason for it. YOu sound like the same person who found it hard to believe that companies discriminate against asian workers with no economic reason for it. YOu sound like the same person who found it hard to believe that companies discriminate against jewish workers with no economic reason for it.

The older workers need to make themselves competetive in the marketplace again, either by accepting lower pay, getting more training or agreeing to retire later.

How will retiring later, get them money now, if they are out of work ? Retraining for what? What jobs are available that older workers can retrain for? Where are these jobs? Accept what lower paying jobs? Where are these lower paying jobs?

"I think one solution would be for workers to retire later. Since they're living longer (with more expensive medical care), it's no longer economically realistic for many people to retire before 70."

You're right. Let's petition Congress to change the mandatory retirement age to 70.
No, let's go for 80. Oh, what the heck, as long as were asking, let's reach for the sky - 90!
Your idea is also a great solution to that pesky Social Security problem. (/sarcasm)

Although it's true most Americans don't save enough for their own retirement, the problem is TAXES ARE TOO DAMNED HIGH!

I agree that social security is a big part of the problem. Most people in their 50's could get by or open a business if they could access all the contributions they have put in, plus interest. Mine would be well over $500,000, but I asked to cash out, several times, and they would not let me, nor give me back all of my money.

Maybe I am oversimplifying things, but it seems that there are two factors to unemployment; # of jobs and # of workers. For years we have been exporting jobs and importing workers, with ever more 'business friendly' administrations. We may go through periods of high employment like in the late 90's, but they will continue to be the exception rather than the rule. We have to stop listening to business leaders who want little more than cheap workers who they do not have to invest anything in. It's sad that the major parites have locked us into two non-solutions; indirect incentives through tax cuts and direct subsidies through government handouts. One can only hope that American ingenuity will outpace our stupid policies.

And just what businesses should they start? Is this really a good economic climate to start a business? Do you know the failure rate of people who start their own businesses ? Do you want them to start a business with the last bit of their savings? or with taxpayers dollars? Most money from the federal government is very difficult to get unless you are a either foreigner or a minority. How does a white man in his 50's get money to start a business?

You're joking, right? </I
No!!!

I actually went to the social security adminitration 3 times in person(over a 20 year time period), and demanded all of my money plus interest back, and to be let out of their program. I also formally wrote the social security administration asking to be removed from the program, and to be given back all of my contributions plus interest. They flatly refused!!!! No joke! Its real folks, they took my money and wont give it back, and if I die, my kids wont get anything from all that I put in there.

You're joking, right?

No!!!

(italics off?)

My suggestion has allowed women, blacks, asians, jews, etc to all be allowed to have a job in the United States. I dont see where my suggestion of allowing older workers to be employeed without discrimination is all that radical, nor is it unamerican.

"...most people will need to work longer if they wish to retire without lowering their standard of living."

I think that might qualify as a catch-22.

Nonetheless, why do seniors have to lower their standard of living? Their kids are grown and gone along with the huge costs of raising them, they don't need a 3500 sq. ft. home, they probably shouldn't even have a mortgage, they don't need to have two new cars, etc.

I'm old enough to have seen my grandparents and parents retire. While they didn't live "high on the hog" they essentially continued to live their lives as they always had.

SS is not the problem. While I don't like the gov't taking my money and giving it back 45 years later with little interest, there are millions of American who would have squandered that money and had nothing.

I'll say this again - it's taxes that insidiously steal people's hard earned money thoughout their lives that force them to continue working. Americans should be able to retire at 55, not 70, 65 or even 62.

And speaking of SS - while America wasn't looking a few years ago, the gov't raised the age of retirement (for the baby boomers) to 66. If you're gen X or gen Y you may be in for an unpleasant surprise.

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.