IBJOpinion

FEIGENBAUM: Unemployment insurance bill's path surprisingly smooth

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Once in a legislative blue moon, a bill will zip through the labyrinthine process with alacrity.

That speed is typically because lawmakers made a mistake and need to correct it, or a new problem has emerged that must be immediately addressed, and bipartisan consensus moves it quickly.

One piece of legislation riding the proverbial rails to the desk of Gov. Daniels doesn’t comport to the traditional fast-track rubric.

House Bill 1450, legislation sponsored by Rep. Dan Leonard, R-Huntington, would return the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund to solvency by 2013 and pay back the federal government by 2020 for the $2 billion in loans the state has accepted to pay benefits over the past two years.

There is a push among the Republican House and Senate majorities to send a final version by month’s end. Just as remarkably, the version exiting the House may be amended in only minor aspects, if at all, in the Senate.

By now, you are familiar with the changes a decade back that trimmed premiums paid by employers and offered more generous benefits, a bipartisan reform package born of strong economic conditions and a trust fund almost embarrassingly overfunded.

As economic conditions changed before the 2007 recession, concerns arose over continued viability of the fund. But the lines trending in different directions weren’t expected to become problematic for many years.

Then the recession struck. The fund quickly ran south of depletion, and even current premiums proved burdensome on employers.

In 2009, Daniels, Senate Republicans and House Democrats agreed on a landmark package to substantially raise employer premiums, crack down on certain practices by employers and employees, and eventually ease the fund back into solvency.

But before the package took effect, the economy weakened further and an election loomed. Virtual unanimous agreement between the House and Senate, legislators and the governor, and Democrats and Republicans postponed implementation of “the largest tax increase in state history” for another year.

Before the 2009 legislation was to take effect this year, the new Republican majority drafted a blueprint for the future.

Under the measure that passed the House at the end of January, business will cover about two-thirds of the expensive climb from the red, while employees would see benefits cut to cover the remainder.

Employer premiums would be slapped with a 13-percent surcharge to cover the federal fund loan and the $80 million interest payment on it coming due in September. The updated rate results in employer-paid premiums doubling in many cases. Despite some cost savings over the unconsummated 2009 law, business interests are not happy, but there isn’t any painless solution.

A new proposed formula would offer unemployment benefits equal to 47 percent of an employee’s average weekly wages (capped at $390)—the national average for unemployment benefits, and a change disfavored by organized labor. Currently, benefits are apportioned based on an employee’s highest wage quarter. The quarterly approach favors construction workers, for example, who may earn the majority of their annual income during a three-month period. Those workers and others whose industries are more seasonal would see benefits reduced under the new calculation.

The bill also places new restrictions on who may collect benefits. Workers who receive severance pay, take voluntary buyouts or are employed on an on-call basis would no longer qualify for weekly checks. The package of changes would result in a 20-percent reduction in benefits, which Democrats find unacceptable both on a human level and because they find it a drag on the economy: It will keep money from recirculating in a community hit hard by unemployment.

Democrats prefer no benefit cuts and seek a 20-year bond for repaying the loan and replenishing the fund.

Outnumbered Democrats appear to offer only token resistance, and may prefer to use this as their 2012 campaign rallying point—perhaps even finding sympathy from business, which also takes a huge cash hit.

You may also be seeing a division of labor (so to speak) along the lines of two years ago, where some unions offer weak resistance to the trust fund steamroller, and look instead to play more serious defense on other fights—such as project labor agreements and a right-to-work bill.

The bill appears headed to the governor on rockets, in time to implement the new structure for first-quarter premium bills—and avoid having it victimized by potential Democratic shenanigans over other issues.•

__________

Feigenbaum publishes Indiana Legislative Insight. His column appears weekly while the Indiana General Assembly is in session. He can be reached at edf@ingrouponline.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing

ADVERTISEMENT