GOP: Compromise On Jobless Benefits
President Obama’s mission as 2014 starts is simple: He has to distract attention from the health care debacle. Health care reform isn’t working and won’t work. So he needs to create a diversion.
With his poll numbers lagging around 40 percent, he is naturally concerned to stop the erosion of his base, so he is resorting to hot button class warfare issues to build his support back up.
None has more of a potential political edge than the extension of unemployment benefits. The Republican Party should not let Obama depict it as a heartless caricature of capitalism by giving him a free ride on the issue of extension of unemployment benefits. Yes, the Republicans advocate an extension as long as it is paid for in the budget. Yes, the Democrats are resisting a deal to pay for the extension just to make a political issue. But, in any case, the Republicans cannot afford to be the party of no when it comes to aiding those out of work.
One can only sympathize with the GOP concerns that extending benefits in the face of a dropping jobless rate is tantamount to creating a new entitlement, a federal welfare system, to subsidize unemployment.
But the answer is to compromise.
Republicans should look for the answer by treating different states differently depending on their levels of unemployment. While national joblessness averages 7.1 percent, the range among states is enormous. At the low end, North Dakota is blessed with a paltry 2.6 percent unemployment rate while Rhode Island and Nevada suffer with a 9.0 percent rate.
There are 28 states, containing one-third of the nation’s population, with jobless rates of 6.5 percent or below. With unemployment this low, they cannot make a compelling case for extended benefits. But that should not stop the Republicans from extending benefits to states with higher unemployment rates. The state with rates at or below the 6.5 percent threshold are:
North Dakota: 2.6
South Dakota: 3.6
New Hampshire: 5.1
West Virginia: 6.1
New Mexico: 6.4
The legislation extending the benefits should include a trigger terminating the extension for any state whose jobless rate drops below 6.5 percent so as the nation recovers from the recession, the 99 week or 52 week unemployment benefit fades into history.
Politically, most of the politically potent Democratic states are above the 6.5 percent level. These include New York, Massachusetts, California, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Washington State, Oregon, New Jersey and, of course, Nevada.
If Republicans offer benefit extensions to these states, the Senate Democrats can hardly refuse and kill the bill because it won’t extend benefits in Texas or Florida or other red states. The Democrats will huff and puff but they will have to bow to the will of the House. Their own constituents will demand it. Let the Republican-tilting states fend for themselves, they will insist, get us the extension we need.
And Republicans will have legislatively reinforced the principle that jobless benefits are primarily for high unemployment periods where one arguably cannot find work. Once work becomes available, jobless benefits deter employment and drive up wage rates to unaffordable levels. The positive national tend in jobless data will give the Congressional Budget Office a basis for a favorable scoring of the future cost of the compromise.
After all, unemployment insurance is basically a state, not a federal program. So why should Washington set its terms on a one-size-fits-all basis. Economic conditions vary and so should jobless benefit time periods.
So give the Democrats half a loaf — their half. It will be an offer they can’t refuse.
It took a lot of guts to do what this young man did. They also offered him 20k in hush money. Fabulous. The proof in my opinion here is that...Read More
If you want to shut up an entire room full of anti-war left-wingers, just ask them what to do about
Some interesting recent: Public Relations: news: 14-time Grammy winning recording: Ricky Skaggs appeared: on theJay Sekulow: show to discuss media bias against Israel at the