Bipartisan Miracle? Senate Republicans Open to Unemployment Extension

Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-UT) speaks during a hearing on health insurance exchanges on November 6, 2013 in the Dirksen Senate Office on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. 
National Journal
Fawn Johnson
See more stories about...
Fawn Johnson
Dec. 17, 2013, 2:40 p.m.

Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­ans are will­ing to dis­cuss an ex­ten­sion of long-term un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits early next year, as long as it is paid for, sev­er­al of them told Na­tion­al Journ­al on Tues­day.

Their will­ing­ness to en­gage on the top­ic sig­nals that un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits could be­come a do­mest­ic policy rar­ity — a safety-net is­sue that isn’t auto­mat­ic­ally mired in a polit­ic­al shout­ing match. But any ser­i­ous ne­go­ti­ations would re­quire law­makers on both sides of the aisle to cal­cu­late the pluses and minuses of un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits for the eco­nomy and wheth­er it’s ap­pro­pri­ate to off­set the cost.

That con­ver­sa­tion has yet to hap­pen. Some Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­ans seem will­ing, even eager, to have it.

“I don’t want to leave people hurt­ing,” said Sen. Or­rin Hatch, R-Utah, who ad­ded that Sen­ate Re­pub­lic­ans didn’t even have a chance to con­sider un­em­ploy­ment as part of the budget deal that passed the House last week. That deal is ex­pec­ted to pass the Sen­ate as early as Wed­nes­day.

Sen. Bob Cork­er, R-Tenn., echoed Hatch’s frus­tra­tion. Un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits “wer­en’t a part of this le­gis­la­tion, so it’s kind of hard to say what we would do,” he said. “What is it coupled with? How is it paid for? Are there re­forms in how it’s be­ing ad­min­istered?”

Without con­gres­sion­al ac­tion, un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits for long-term un­em­ployed people will ex­pire on Dec. 28. Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Harry Re­id, D-Nev., has pledged to bring a ret­ro­act­ive un­em­ploy­ment ex­ten­sion to the Sen­ate floor as one of the first or­ders of busi­ness when mem­bers re­turn in early Janu­ary. He wants the be­ne­fits to con­tin­ue for an­oth­er year, at a cost of $25 bil­lion over 10 years.

Re­id’s pro­pos­al, which has no off­set, will not fly among Re­pub­lic­ans.

“I can’t jus­ti­fy adding $25 bil­lion more to the de­fi­cit,” said Sen­ate Minor­ity Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas.

But that doesn’t mean oth­er op­tions aren’t avail­able. What if the ex­ten­sion is fully paid for? “That would be a start,” Cornyn said. “The way I un­der­stand the eco­nom­ics of this is, you can raise wages on some work­ers, and you can put oth­er people out of work.”

Cornyn is hint­ing at a school of thought among some eco­nom­ists that says em­ploy­ers are less likely to cre­ate job open­ings when they know that eli­gible work­ers have ac­cess to un­em­ploy­ment. First, they have to pay those work­ers con­sid­er­ably more than their weekly un­em­ploy­ment rate. Second, if they have to lay them off, their tax rates go up.

Demo­crats will have to con­tend with these ar­gu­ments when they pro­pose ex­tend­ing be­ne­fits for the long-term un­em­ployed next year. They can say that the Con­gres­sion­al Budget Of­fice pro­jects a net boon for the eco­nomy, even with the neg­at­ive im­pact of some people re­main­ing un­em­ployed for longer.

But CBO num­bers are cold com­fort for most Demo­crats. They plan, ini­tially, to go with the more emo­tion­al ar­gu­ments about the hu­man side of the story, de­scrib­ing in de­tail the 1.3 mil­lion people who are out of work and will sud­denly have no safety net, to make Re­pub­lic­ans squirm.

“When the real­ity of what the fail­ure to ex­tend means, we’ll have more of a fo­cus on it than we do now,” said Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., a long­time cham­pi­on of un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits.

Re­pub­lic­ans may in fact squirm about the plight of the un­em­ployed, par­tic­u­larly from their own con­stitu­ents. But they won’t be­gin any talks about be­ne­fits un­less Demo­crats show that they are will­ing to find a way to pay for the ex­ten­sion. That’s a high open­ing bid, and Demo­crat­ic lead­ers fear the de­mand for off­sets could sink the ne­go­ti­ations be­fore they even be­gin.

“That al­most makes it im­possible,” said Sen­ate Ma­jor­ity Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill. “It’s so much money. Twenty-five bil­lion. And when I look at what we just went through with this budget agree­ment, it was not an easy lift.”¦ They won’t go to tax loop­holes.”¦ They say, ‘Let’s go to the en­ti­tle­ments,’ and we’re not go­ing to do that.”

Non­ethe­less, Durbin in­dic­ated that Demo­crats would be will­ing to off­set the un­em­ploy­ment ex­ten­sion if they knew Re­pub­lic­ans would ac­cept the deal.

Oth­er Demo­crats, such as Cardin, are wary of set­ting that pre­ced­ent. Al­most all of the long-term un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits that passed by Con­gress in the last 10 years have not been off­set be­cause they were con­sidered a net be­ne­fit to the eco­nomy. The ex­cep­tion was in 2009, when the eco­nom­ic-stim­u­lus pack­age in­cluded ex­ten­ded be­ne­fits for the long-term un­em­ployed that were fully paid for. The same ex­ten­sion was re­upped in 2011 and in 2012.

Cardin said those off­sets were a mis­take. “It should not be off­set,” he said. “It’s plug­ging in to the eco­nomy.”

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
6 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
7 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×