IBJNews

Jobless-benefits extension bill stalls in U.S. Senate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Legislation to resurrect long-term jobless legislation stalled in the U.S. Senate on Thursday, triggering recriminations from both sides of the political aisle despite earlier expressions of optimism that benefits might soon be restored for more than 1 million victims of the recession.

Gridlock asserted itself after majority Democrats offered to pay for a 10-month extension of a scaled-back program of benefits — then refused to permit Republicans even to seek any changes.

Instead, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., accused Republicans of "continually denigrating our economy, our president and frankly, I believe, our country."

But Sen. Dan Coats of Indiana, one of a half-dozen Republicans who helped advance the bill over an initial hurdle earlier in the week, said he hadn't been consulted on any compromise.

Echoing complaints by other members of his party, he said that under Reid's leadership, he has been relegated to the sidelines. Indiana voters "didn't send me here to be told just to sit down and forget it," he said.

At issue was a struggle over the possible resurrection of a program that expired on Dec. 28, immediately cutting off benefits of roughly $256 weekly for more than 1.3 million hurt by the recession.

The measure is the first to come before the Senate in the election year, and since Monday has become ground zero of a competition between the political parties to appeal to hard-hit victims of the longest recession in more than a half-century.

While unemployment has receded in recent months, long-term joblessness is high by historical standards.

Despite the squabbling, lawmakers in both parties said the effort to find a compromise would continue.

"We're still trying to work through this," said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., whose state has 9 percent unemployment.

At midday Thursday, Reid had expressed optimism about the chances for compromise, and Democratic officials said talks with Republicans were focused on a scaled-back program that is fully paid for and would provide up to 31 weeks of benefits for the long-term unemployed.

The officials said the proposal would run through the late fall, and the price tag — approximately $18 billion — would be offset through cuts elsewhere in the budget so deficits would not rise.

Reid told reporters he was "cautiously optimistic" about a compromise emerging later in the day, and said he had held meetings with fellow Nevadan Dean Heller, a Republican, but provided no details.

But midafternoon, when Reid formally outlined the proposal, there was no evident Republican support for it, and each side accused the other of an unwillingness to compromise.

Chandler Smith, a spokeswoman for Heller, said the senator met with Reid and Reed during the day and has been talking with Republicans as well, although he spent part of the day at a hospital for repair of a cast.

Heller "remains optimistic, and appreciates that Sen. Reid has been negotiating in good faith to reach a deal," Smith said.

Democrats initially sought a three-month renewal of the expired program and opposed paying for it, meaning the $6.4 billion cost would be added to the deficit.

Republicans countered that any legislation must be offset by cuts elsewhere in the budget. Among their proposals was one to delay the requirement for individuals to purchase health care under "Obamacare," and another to prevent immigrants living in the United States from claiming a certain type of tax credit for their children.

They said either would pass easily, a claim Democrats did not dispute. But rather than exposing his rank and file to a politically hazardous vote, Reid made sure they were not formally offered.

The expired law provided a maximum of 47 weeks of payments after an unemployed worker has exhausted state-funded benefits, usually 26 weeks.

The new measure would reduce the 47 weeks to a maximum of 31 weeks, officials said, based on a sliding scale that dates to the expired program.

The Democratic officials said the first tier of additional benefits would be six weeks, and be generally available to all who have used up their state eligibility.

They said an additional six weeks would be available in states where unemployment is 6 percent or higher; an additional nine weeks in states with joblessness of 7 percent or higher; and 10 more weeks in states where unemployment is 9 percent or more.

The cost would be offset in part by extending a previously-approved reduction in Medicare payments to providers, the officials said, and in part by limiting or eliminating the ability of individuals on Social Security disability from also receiving unemployment benefits.

The officials who described the details of the possible legislation did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to speak on the record.

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. to mention the rest of Molly's experience- she served as Communications Director for the Indianapolis Department of Public Works and also did communications for the state. She's incredibly qualified for this role and has a real love for Indianapolis and Indiana. Best of luck to her!

  2. Shall we not demand the same scrutiny for law schools, med schools, heaven forbid, business schools, etc.? How many law school grads are servers? How many business start ups fail and how many business grads get low paying jobs because there are so few high paying positions available? Why does our legislature continue to demean public schools and give taxpayer dollars to charters and private schools, ($171 million last year), rather than investing in our community schools? We are on a course of disaster regarding our public school attitudes unless we change our thinking in a short time.

  3. I agree with the other reader's comment about the chunky tomato soup. I found myself wanting a breadstick to dip into it. It tasted more like a marinara sauce; I couldn't eat it as a soup. In general, I liked the place... but doubt that I'll frequent it once the novelty wears off.

  4. The Indiana toll road used to have some of the cleanest bathrooms you could find on the road. After the lease they went downhill quickly. While not the grossest you'll see, they hover a bit below average. Am not sure if this is indicative of the entire deal or merely a portion of it. But the goals of anyone taking over the lease will always be at odds. The fewer repairs they make, the more money they earn since they have a virtual monopoly on travel from Cleveland to Chicago. So they only comply to satisfy the rules. It's hard to hand public works over to private enterprise. The incentives are misaligned. In true competition, you'd have multiple roads, each build by different companies motivated to make theirs more attractive. Working to attract customers is very different than working to maximize profit on people who have no choice but to choose your road. Of course, we all know two roads would be even more ridiculous.

  5. The State is in a perfect position. The consortium overpaid for leasing the toll road. Good for the State. The money they paid is being used across the State to upgrade roads and bridges and employ people at at time most of the country is scrambling to fund basic repairs. Good for the State. Indiana taxpayers are no longer subsidizing the toll roads to the tune of millions a year as we had for the last 20 years because the legislature did not have the guts to raise tolls. Good for the State. If the consortium fails, they either find another operator, acceptable to the State, to buy them out or the road gets turned back over to the State and we keep the Billions. Good for the State. Pat Bauer is no longer the Majority or Minority Leader of the House. Good for the State. Anyway you look at this, the State received billions of dollars for an assett the taxpayers were subsidizing, the State does not have to pay to maintain the road for 70 years. I am having trouble seeing the downside.

ADVERTISEMENT