House to vote on extending jobless benefits

[Perchoutofwater]

House to vote on extending jobless benefits

 

By Joseph Weber (Contact)

 

The U.S. House is scheduled to vote Tuesday on legislation to extend unemployment benefits to thousands of unemployed workers in states hit hardest by the recession.

 

The bill proposed by Rep. Jim McDermott, Washington Democrat, would provide an additional 13 weeks of benefits for an estimated 400,000 unemployed U.S. workers in states with a jobless rate of at least 8.5 percent.

 

Though the recession that started in Dec. 2007 appears to be ending, high unemployment remains a persistent problem that economists and the Obama administration expect to continue into next year.

 

"Probably the jobs picture is not going to improve considerably, and it could even get a little bit worse, over the next couple of months," President Obama said Sunday on CNN. "We lost so many jobs that making up for those that have already been lost is going to require really high growth rates."

 

His comments follow Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke's statement five days earlier that the recession has likely ended but not enough to reduce high unemployment.

 

The U.S. unemployment rate reached 9.7 percent in August, and the economy has eliminated roughly 7 million jobs since the recession started, the biggest drop since World War II.

 

The additional benefits would supplement the 26 weeks offered by most states and the 53 weeks offered by the federal government, including the additional 20 weeks Congress approved in February.

 

The bill requires two-thirds vote for passage. Mr. McDermott is chairman of the Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the country's unemployment-insurance system.

 

Right now, at least 24 states and the District of Columbia have a jobless rate of at least 8.5 percent, including Alabama, Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin and West Virginia.

 

An estimated 1 million more unemployed workers could receive the benefits when their's end later this year if the jobless rate hits 8.5 percent in additional states.

 

Governors from 22 states last week sent a letter to Congress urging federal lawmakers to extend unemployment benefits, including those provided for in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

 

"Congress needs to understand that America's labor force needs its help," said Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, Democrat, who signed the Sept. 15 letter.

 

People are unemployed, we want businesses to employ more people but we are going to make hiring someone more expensive. Brilliant!

 

Also, is someone that is unemployed Alaska any less unemployed than those in California or Massachusetts?

[westvirginia]

People are unemployed, we want businesses to employ more people but we are going to make hiring someone more expensive. Brilliant!

 

Also, is someone that is unemployed Alaska any less unemployed than those in California or Massachusetts?

 

They're no less unemployed but there sure are a lot less voters there...

[wirehairman]

If they feel it is neccessary, it should be across the board versus just in states with unemployment in excess of 8.5%.

[WaterMan]

Screw the Government trying to help people. Rape and pillage.

[yo mama]

I'd have been happier if the Government had taken the same money that was going to those unemployment benefits and just hired some folks to do something that needs doing.

[Perchoutofwater]

I'd have been happier if the Government had taken the same money that was going to those unemployment benefits and just hired some folks to do something that needs doing.

 

Putting aside the fact that this is not a proper function of the federal government, I agree with you assuming the government is going to overstep its bounds.

[yo mama]

Putting aside the fact that this is not a proper function of the federal government, I agree with you assuming the government is going to overstep its bounds.

Fine. Then take the same amount of money and offer tax credits to employers who hire in whatever sector it is we're trying to stimulate at the moment. Tax credits are something the federal government can legitimately monkey with.

Edited September 21, 2009 by yo mama

[Perchoutofwater]

Fine. Then take the same amount of money and offer tax credits to employers who hire in whatever sector it is we're trying to stimulate at the moment. Tax credits are something the federal government can legitimately monkey with.

 

I disagree with tax credits as well. My feeling is the federal government shouldn't tax any more than required to maintain the armed forces and regulate commerce between the states and between the states and other countries. By regulating commerce, I mean in sense that Madison and Jefferson envisioned. If tax credits are available that suggests over taxation.

 

Your solution above would make sure Government Motors and GE got tax credits.

Edited September 21, 2009 by Perchoutofwater

[keggerz]

I disagree with tax credits as well. My feeling is the federal government shouldn't tax any more than required to maintain the armed forces and regulate commerce between the states and between the states and other countries. By regulating commerce, I mean in sense that Madison and Jefferson envisioned. If tax credits are available that suggests over taxation.

 

Your solution above would make sure Government Motors and GE got tax credits.

You should move to Colonial Williamsburg...you can then get a job being an interpreter and act like you live back in the time of Jefferson and Madison...and if you are lucky maybe you can even get the gig of playing Jefferson

[Perchoutofwater]

You should move to Colonial Williamsburg...you can then get a job being an interpreter and act like you live back in the time of Jefferson and Madison...and if you are lucky maybe you can even get the gig of playing Jefferson

 

Am I wrong?

[bushwacked]

Am I wrong?

 

Is this a trick question?

[yo mama]

I disagree with tax credits as well. My feeling is the federal government shouldn't tax any more than required to maintain the armed forces and regulate commerce between the states and between the states and other countries. By regulating commerce, I mean in sense that Madison and Jefferson envisioned. If tax credits are available that suggests over taxation.

 

Your solution above would make sure Government Motors and GE got tax credits.

Your philosophical disagreement with taxation aside, the Fed has the legal and constitutional authority under the 16th Amendment to give - or take away - tax credits as it sees fit. Keep in mind, the 16th Amendment wasn't part of the Constitution when Madison and Jefferson were alive. But its in there now, just like the 1st or 2nd Amendments, and they are a package deal.

 

As far as GM or GE getting credits, that up to the drafters of the proposal. Limit such credits to small businesses for all I care. The point is that we're trying to help those who have lost their jobs, and those folk need money in their pockets. I'd just rather buy them a fishing pole than a Filet O' Fish, is all.

Edited September 21, 2009 by yo mama

[Perchoutofwater]

Your philosophical disagreement with taxation aside, the Fed has the legal and constitutional authority under the 16th Amendment to give - or take away - tax credits as it sees fit. Keep in mind, the 16th Amendment wasn't part of the Constitution when Madison and Jefferson were alive. But its in there now, just like the 1st or 2nd Amendments, and they are a package deal.

 

As far as GM or GE getting credits, that up to the drafters of the proposal. Limit such credits to small businesses for all I care. The point is that we're trying to help those who have lost their jobs, and those folk need money in their pockets. I'd just rather buy them a fishing pole than a Filet O' Fish, is all.

 

I agree with you for the most part. If we are going to do something, lets at least have the people doing something for the money.

 

BTW, was the 16th Amendment legally ratified by the states? BTW, my problem with the income tax is the graduated income tax. If there was a flat tax, I would not feel that I'm being taxed more for the same representation. I mean if we are going to have graduated tax, shouldn't we have graduated representation?

Edited September 21, 2009 by Perchoutofwater

[yo mama]

I agree with you for the most part. If we are going to do something, lets at least have the people doing something for the money.

There's plenty of work that needs to be done around the Country and lots of people purported "looking" for work. Given our limited resources, I'd rather see those resources allocated to the folks who are looking the hardest. If the Fed effectively puts out a sign that says "Jobs: inquire within" - and people don't - then my liberal heart stops bleeding for them. Somewhat.

[Ursa Majoris]

People are unemployed, we want businesses to employ more people but we are going to make hiring someone more expensive. Brilliant!

How does this make hiring more expensive?

[Perchoutofwater]

How does this make hiring more expensive?

 

It will increase the tax rate employers are charged by the state for unemployment insurance.

[WaterMan]

Wouldn't it be fair to say that a billionaire has more representation in DC than someone with minimum wage?

[Kid Cid]

There's plenty of work that needs to be done around the Country and lots of people purported "looking" for work. Given our limited resources, I'd rather see those resources allocated to the folks who are looking the hardest. If the Fed effectively puts out a sign that says "Jobs: inquire within" - and people don't - then my liberal heart stops bleeding for them. Somewhat.

Have you ever applied for a Fed job? I have for the last year and a half. I haven't made it through the HR bullchit mess fu(kup to the actual people doing the hiring. I have a 22 page application that either doesn't use the right buzz words or use them enough to get past the computer programs they use to screen the applications. This is after having multiple people in the office screen the application to get it put together properly. So no, I don't have a problem with people eschewing the gov't for another means of employment.

[Ursa Majoris]

It will increase the tax rate employers are charged by the state for unemployment insurance.

Enough to not hire people? And are you (yet again) second guessing this tax increase?

[Perchoutofwater]

Enough to not hire people? And are you (yet again) second guessing this tax increase?

 

I don't know, because I don't know how the affected states fund unemployment insurance. More than likely it is going to be a small tax increase that in and of itself could probably be absorbed by most companies. The problem is this doesn't appear to be the only tax increase or increased regulatory cost associated with owning a business that we are seeing proposed and seriously considered by this congress and the administration. If they would just stop at one and let businesses regain their composure once the effect of that increase is realized it would be much easier to cope. Right now it is looking like businesses are going to suffer the death by a thousand cuts (or in this case hikes). Below I've bolded how this would effect Texas if it was applicable to Texas. I'm not familiar with other states, but would guess that they would be somewhat similar.

 

Components of the Tax Rate

 

General Tax Rate - This rate is based on unemployment insurance claims charged to your account, and is the product of a Statewide multiplier called the Replenishment Ratio and your Benefit Ratio, multiplied by 100% and rounded up to the next tenth. The Replenishment Ratio is calculated each year based on total benefits paid Statewide for a four-quarter period. The Benefit Ratio is the total of your chargebacks of unemployment benefits paid to your former employees for the three years prior to the rate computation date divided by your employees' taxed wages for the same period. The ratio is multiplied by 100% and rounded up to the next hundredth. Change in an employer's general tax rate is directly related to staff patterns and restructuring to adjust to the marketplace.

 

It is important to note that the Commission can use in the calculation of the Benefit Ratio only taxed wages on which the tax due has been paid by the end of the month of the computation date. It is especially important for employers with chargebacks of benefits to pay their tax timely to divide the chargeback total by the largest possible taxed wage total.

 

Replenishment Tax Rate - This is a tax based on Statewide benefits and taxed wages and is applicable to all employers to cover unemployment claims not charged to a specific employer. This tax varies inversely from year to year, to statewide economic conditions.

Deficit Tax Rate - This tax is calculated by multiplying the statewide Deficit Ratio by the sum of your prior year's General, Deficit and Replenishment Tax Rates. The product is rounded to the nearest hundredth and may not exceed 2.00%. The Deficit Tax applies only to those employers who were experience rated in the previous year. A Deficit Tax was assessed in 2002 and 2003.

Employment and Training Investment Assessment - The rate of 0.10% is set according to State Law and is the same for each employer entitled to an experience rate.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Am I wrong?

 

For continually paralleling our current situation with the times in which Jefferson and Madison lived? Yes.

[Yukon Cornelius]

I'd have been happier if the Government had taken the same money that was going to those unemployment benefits and just hired some folks to do something that needs doing.

that would be to much like fdr. and we no was a bad guy

[yo mama]

Have you ever applied for a Fed job? I have for the last year and a half. I haven't made it through the HR bullchit mess fu(kup to the actual people doing the hiring. I have a 22 page application that either doesn't use the right buzz words or use them enough to get past the computer programs they use to screen the applications. This is after having multiple people in the office screen the application to get it put together properly. So no, I don't have a problem with people eschewing the gov't for another means of employment.

I have. Once with the Department of Labor (got the job) and once with the IRS (never heard back). There is an art to the application process, for sure.

 

My overarching point is that I'm fine with tax dollars going to job creation: public or private sector, I don't care. I'm not fine with merely extending unemployment benefits using cash the county doesn't have in the first place because the country gets no value back. It seems silly for us to quibble about this because it sounds like we're both on the same page about getting people back to work being the main goal.

[yo mama]

that would be to much like fdr. and we no was a bad guy

His social programs put a lot of unemployed people back to work, doing things that the country needed done. FDR may have had his faults, and many of his programs did mutate in the wrong direction IMO. But I can't really argue with his job creation.

[cre8tiff]

I disagree.

 

I boiled it down for you. No need to thank me.