The bill  President Obama has been hammering Republicans over in the last couple of days has been puzzling since he already knew that he had enough Republican votes to overcome any filibuster and pass the extended benefits.

The problem, though, isn’t that there is insufficient Republican support to pass it. The problem is that the bill will ultimately increase long term unemployment and it will reduce our GDP.

Ironically, if some of Obama’s attacks are correct, Republicans can only be accused of trying to help  Obama’s presidency.

Suppose, as the president said on Monday, that Republicans really believe “that emergency relief somehow discourages people from looking for a job.”  If that were true, those Republicans who are opposing the added extension of benefits would believe that defeating it would lower the unemployment rate.

Wouldn’t a lower unemployment rate before the November elections help the Democrats?  Isn’t that a sign of true bipartisanship?

It doesn’t take much of a stretch to see that cutting extended unemployment benefits from at least 95 weeks to around 26 weeks will cause the unemployment rate to decline.

Read full story

“… there is no evidence that indefinite extension of unemployment benefits has much of an economically stimulative effect, that I know of.”

I actually touched on this a couple of weeks ago, when I highlighted Mark Zandi of Moody’s comparison of the per-dollar impact of various stimulus policies. Zandi used his econometric model to estimate the effect on GDP, per dollar, of different elements in the 2009 stimulus package. Here’s his explanation of the methodology:

The first step divides the stimulus bill — both its spending and tax cuts — into various components. The second step is to derive multipliers for each of these components, using historical data. … The multipliers are combined with the actual spending to date under the ARRA to derive the change in GDP from the stimulus bill, relative to no stimulus. Finally, the historical relationship between GDP and employment is used to derive an estimate of the net impact of the stimulus on jobs.

With that process, Zandi estimated that each dollar spent on extending unemployment benefits generated $1.61 in economic growth. Extending benefits had the third-greatest bang-for-the-buck of any component in the stimulus package, after increasing food stamps and subsidizing work-sharing, both temporary measures. To quote Zandi, “No form of the fiscal stimulus has proved more effective during the past two years than emergency UI benefits.” The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities looked at the impact on poverty of the extension and found that it saved a total of 800,000 people from falling below the poverty line. So far, then, unemployment benefits have been very effective at stimulating the economy and reducing economic misery among affected families.

Read full story

Extended benefits from the federal government, which are provided after state benefits run out, are set to expire April 5. A planned extension passed by the House of Representatives did not pass the Senate before they left for their Easter break, after it was blocked by Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

Sen. Coburn had wanted the extension to be paid for with stimulus funds, which Democrats didn’t agree with.

“We had a compromise, we developed a plan where our children weren’t paying for this, we would, by offsetting and not adding to the debt,” Coburn said Friday.

Without the extension, people getting state jobless benefits won’t be able to apply for the federally-paid unemployment insurance after April 5, and anyone already receiving those federal checks could be cut off. Democrats have said they plan to take up the issue after returning from the Easter recess on April 12, and possibly include retroactive payments to make up for the lapse in coverage.

Amber Cannabis of Fort Smith came into the Department of Workforce Services Monday with questions about how that would affect her. She had lost her job as an accountant last June, and had been living off a combination of unemployment insurance and savings.

Read full story

But the Senate will likely be able to renew them with a Tuesday vote. Democrats are expected to take up a broader bill next week, the second in their “jobs agenda” that will extend the benefits, among many other provisions – including popular tax extenders – for one year.

The bill is expected to pass by the end of next week.

The latest stalemate, however, produced a rare, late-night partisan floor brawl between two scrappy senators.

In the red corner is Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., whose decision not to seek re-election this year has made him a wildcard. He has blocked a $10 billion bill that extends the benefits for 30 days because he wants to lay out how the extension will be paid for, preferably with unallocated stimulus funds.

In the blue corner is Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., who, along with other Democrats told Bunning no way because the extension is an emergency and shouldn’t come with any offsets.

The battle lasted for hours Thursday when Durbin sought unanimous consent, a move that forced Bunning to object each time to uphold his filibuster.

Read full story

Seven from Broome County were charged in the state investigation and are accused of taking $27,291, said New York Labor Commissioner M. Patricia Smith.

Others charged include four from Chemung County ($9,144); three from Chenango County ($16,980); four from Steuben County ($17,334) and one from Tompkins County ($3,442). State officials did not identify those charged.

A total of 53 people across central New York have been charged with taking $247,051 in illegal benefits, Smith said.

The labor department worked with district attorneys and law enforcement agencies to investigate the alleged fraud. Most of the people collected unemployment benefits while earning a paycheck, Smith said.

“It is nothing short of shameful to think that people would steal from a fund designed to help families put food on the table, gas in their cars and clothes on the backs of their children,” Smith said.

Read full story

During the robust economy earlier in the decade, the Legislature significantly increased unemployment benefits, which were grossly inadequate in a state with a high cost of living.

Even with the increase in payments to a maximum of $450 a week, there are 15 states that pay higher unemployment benefits.

Unfortunately, in an all-too-typical action, the Legislature increased obligations on unemployment benefits without any increases in taxes to pay for them. Employer contributions were not raised because it would have required a two-thirds vote, which was politically impossible at the time.

During a healthy economy, California had no problem financing the higher jobless benefits. But with the steep and lengthy recession, the state is unable to raise enough revenues to meet its unemployment benefit obligations.

California’s unemployment insurance fund is expected to end the year $7.4 billion in the hole. To keep benefits flowing, the state already has borrowed $4.7 billion from the federal government, which it must repay.

Interest payments have been waived until 2011 as part of the federal stimulus package. However, interest is accruing at a 5 percent annual rate

Read full story

The pledge is included in the governor’s prepared remarks to a gathering of the Maryland Chamber of Commerce, which is meeting in Cambridge. O’Malley provides no specifics in his speech, and aides said his administration is still reviewing several possible models for reform that will likely require legislative approval.

The currrent predicament is largely the result of a 2005 law that calls for an automatic review of the state’s unemployment insurance fund every Sept. 30 to determine if it has enough cash to remain viable in the coming year. A formula is used to determine how much employers must pay to keep the fund solvent.

The economic downturn has taken a heavy toll on such funds in Maryland and other states around the country.

Read full story

- Next in line is a bill on a section of the federal stimulus package destined for unemployment insurance. Gov. Rick Perry has promised to reject those funds, saying they would require to change its policies toward unemployment insurance; a band of GOP Senators disagreed, though, according to reporter Terry Stutz. Discussion began in the House on Thursday.

- Leftover from Thursday’s calendar are major bills on tax exemptions for certain disabled veterans, regulations for electrical cooperatives and “regional military sustainability commissions.” That legislation was pushed back by prolonged debate on the top 10 percent rule and unemployment insurance.

Read full story

- It may be too late, though - Perry has a time to veto legislation, and representatives can’t override a veto after they adjourn. House reporter Bob Garrett noted last week that for the math to work out right, the bill would’ve had to be on Perry’s desk last night.

- High school juniors, listen up - SB175 would cap the so-called “10 percent” law at Texas public universities to half an incoming freshman class, allowing school officials more flexibility in determining the other half of the student body. Current law allows any high school senior in the top 10 percent of their class automatic admission to public universities in Texas. Many minority lawmakers support the policy, but bill sponsors and university officials say the policy is blocking the door for qualified applicants below that threshold. Terry Stutz wrote about the bill here.

Read full story

Lawmakers were expected to deliver a one-two boost to jobless benefits this year. Workers got their share earlier this session in legislation that raised benefit checks by $45 a week and ensured that no one will receive less than $200 a week.

But when it was time for businesses to get theirs, House members balked. In the name of providing marginally better benefits to workers, lawmakers scuttled a tenuous compromise that would have given businesses a break while putting the state’s jobless program back in compliance with federal law.

The Senate had previously succeeded in brokering a deal that brought together business interests normally at odds over changes to unemployment insurance rates.

That deal fell apart in the House, where lawmakers apparently picked the unemployment bill to exact revenge for what they see as legislative leadership’s betrayal of labor this session.

Instead of merely cutting businesses’ tax rates under the unemployment program, the House version also raises the average unemployment check by a meager $14 a week in 2010 and then tacks on big tax increases for employers if the insurance fund dips below a certain level.

Read full story