IBJNews

Showdown set on unemployment bill in U.S. Senate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The new year looks a lot like the old one in the Senate, with Democrats scratching for votes to pass an agenda they share with President Barack Obama, and Republicans decidedly unenthusiastic about supporting legislation without changes.

At the dawn of the 2014 election year, the issue is unemployment benefits, and a White House-backed bill to renew benefits that lapsed last month for the long-term jobless.

The three-month measure is the leading edge of a Democratic program that also includes raising the minimum wage and closing tax loopholes on the wealthy and corporations. The Democratic agenda also includes measures designed to demonstrate sympathy with those who suffered during the worst recession in decades and a subsequent long, slow recovery.

With bad weather preventing more than a dozen senators from traveling to Washington on Monday evening, a showdown vote was postponed until Tuesday.

But not before Republicans accused Democrats of playing politics.

"It is transparent that this is a political exercise, not a real effort to try to fix the problem," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said in a protest followed immediately by Majority Leader Harry Reid's agreement to delay the vote.

It was unclear whether the delay would affect the fate of the bill.

Democratic supporters of the three-month extension of jobless benefits need 60 votes to advance the White House-backed bill, and their chances hinge on securing backing from at least four Republicans in addition to Sen. Dean Heller of high-unemployment Nevada.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine told reporters she would vote to advance the bill, in the hope that Republicans would have a chance to offer changes that would offset the cost and prevent deficits from rising.

Other Republicans weren't as optimistic.

Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee said he would vote the other way. "Unfortunately, this bill is being jammed through, has not been considered in committee and will not be able to be amended on the floor," he said. "Spending $6.5 billion in three months without trying to find ways to pay for it or improve the underlying policy is irresponsible and takes us in the wrong direction," he added. Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, a self-styled spending and budget watchdog, said people should be asking whether additional jobless benefits amount to an "incentive or disincentive" for people to find work. Yet, he said in an interview Tuesday on the Fox News Channel, the Obama administration has been "deceitful" about the repercussions of opposing the bill.

"So now we're going to have a political issue," Coburn said. "You don't care if you don't extend this."

As drafted, the bill would restore between 14 weeks and 47 weeks of benefits averaging $256 weekly to an estimated 1.3 million long-term jobless who were affected when the program expired Dec. 28. Without action by Congress, thousands more each week would feel the impact as their state-funded benefits expire, generally after 26 weeks.

"These are people who want to work, but they need some help," Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., said of the men and women who have been out of work longer than 26 weeks. He said many are middle-class, middle-aged people who never thought they would wind up in the situation in which they find themselves.

Reid said that as the unemployed spend the funds they receive, the overall economy grows by $1.50 for every $1 in benefits.

But Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said without steps to offset the legislation's expense, all of the $6 billion or more it costs would add to deficits. He called it "just a total violation of promised fiscal responsibility."

Heller said he would have preferred to have paid for the benefits "in a manner that does not burden our nation with more debt." At the same time, he said, "for these benefits to simply vanish without giving families the time to plan ... is just not right."

Nevada's unemployment was measured at 9 percent in November, tied with Rhode Island for the highest in the nation.

Republicans appeared split into three camps: Heller and an unknown number of others; a group that is willing to renew the benefits, but insists that the $6.4 billion cost be paid for; and a third group opposed under any circumstances.

Two influential outside organizations opposed the bill, including Heritage Action, which called the program of extended unemployment benefits "ineffective and wasteful."

At issue was a complicated system that provides as much as 47 weeks of federally-funded benefits, which begin after state benefits, usually 26 weeks in duration, are exhausted.

The first tier of additional benefits is 14 weeks and generally available to all who have used up their state benefits.

An additional 14 weeks is available to the unemployed in states where unemployment is 6 percent or higher. Nine more weeks of benefits are available in states with joblessness of 7 percent or higher. In states where unemployment is 9 percent or higher, another 10 weeks of benefits are available.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Corker's comments
    "Unfortunately, this bill is being jammed through, has not been considered in committee and will not be able to be amended on the floor." REALLY, like the 40-plus ACA "repeal" votes in the House (America wants reimbursement for those) or the ideological "job creation" House bills that Republicans breeze through on the floor? "Spending $6.5 billion in three months without trying to find ways to pay for it or improve the underlying policy is irresponsible and takes us in the wrong direction." REALLY? House Republicans have no problem with borrowing to fund tax breaks to oil companies and large agri-businesses?
  • NO NO NO
    If your career has dried up or your company doesnt exist or is in financial crisis, you might want to consider another line of work. Better yourself with education or another line of work

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. Can your dog sign a marriage license or personally state that he wishes to join you in a legal union? If not then no, you cannot marry him. When you teach him to read, write, and speak a discernible language, then maybe you'll have a reasonable argument. Thanks for playing!

  2. Look no further than Mike Rowe, the former host of dirty jobs, who was also a classically trained singer.

  3. Current law states income taxes are paid to the county of residence not county of income source. The most likely scenario would be some alteration of the income tax distribution formula so money earned in Marion co. would go to Marion Co by residents of other counties would partially be distributed to Marion co. as opposed to now where the entirety is held by the resident's county.

  4. This is more same-old, same-old from a new generation of non-progressive 'progressives and fear mongers. One only needs to look at the economic havoc being experienced in California to understand the effect of drought on economies and people's lives. The same mindset in California turned a blind eye to the growth of population and water needs in California, defeating proposal after proposal to build reservoirs, improve water storage and delivery infrastructure...and the price now being paid for putting the demands of a raucous minority ahead of the needs of many. Some people never, never learn..

  5. I wonder if I can marry him too? Considering we are both males, wouldn't that be a same sex marriage as well? If they don't honor it, I'll scream discrimination just like all these people have....

ADVERTISEMENT