Long-term unemployment insurance is all but dead. Congress will take up the issue again after it returns from the recess that begins Friday, but even if a bill passes the Senate (where it failed twice on Tuesday), it’s probably dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled House.
How could Congress fail to address perhaps the most important economic issue of the day? Democrats rightly blame Republicans. All but a handful of GOPers oppose renewing the extended benefits — which were created as an emergency measure during the depth of the recession — on the grounds that the program boosts the deficit and breeds a culture of dependency.
But both parties stand to gain something politically if the benefits are not restored (they expired in late December), even as people who have been out of work for a long time get screwed.
Here’s why: Cutting off the benefits will almost certainly cause the unemployment rate to drop. When it does, Republicans will feel ideologically vindicated, while Democrats will have some good economic news to sell to voters ahead of the 2014 election.
There are two forces that push down the unemployment rate when benefits expire, and while economists aren’t exactly sure how much responsibility to assign to either, the outcome is the same either way.
The first explanation is that people collecting benefits get off the dole and find jobs. “You do a disservice to these workers. When you allow people to be on unemployment insurance for 99 weeks, you’re causing them to become part of this perpetual unemployed group,” Sen. Rand Paul said on Fox News in early December. The idea is that people collecting benefits who have been holding out for a better job will now take whatever they can get.
The more likely explanation is the alternative, which assumes that many of the people who lose their benefits will get discouraged and give up on finding a job. Because the government counts people as unemployed only if they are currently looking for work, there will suddenly be a lot fewer unemployed people, at least in the eyes of the official statistics.
Remember, these people have been out of work for a very long time, and numerous studies suggest that many of them will simply not be able to find jobs, no matter how hard they try, thanks to employer discrimination and poor job prospects. Many recipients may have kept up their job search — and thus continued to get counted as “unemployed” — only because they’re required to do so in order to collect unemployment-insurance benefits.
“Both of these forces bring down the unemployment rate, but for very different reasons,” said Aaron Chatterji, who teaches at Duke University’s business school and previously served as a senior economist in the White House Council of Economic Advisers.
Michael Feroli, the chief U.S. economist for JPMorgan Chase, estimated that the “lapsing of [extended unemployment compensation] could lower the unemployment rate by perhaps 0.25%-0.50%-pt, with much of the effect coming through reduced labor force participation, rather than increased employment.” Goldman Sachs says the drop could be as high as 0.8 percentage points if all 1.3 million Americans who are expected to lose their benefits give up looking for a new job.
Chatterji’s state provides a natural experiment. Back in July, North Carolina’s GOP-controlled legislature cut the maximum length of long-term unemployment benefits, and reduced the size of weekly checks, presaging what will happen nationally if Congress continues to sit on its hands. Since then, the unemployment rate in North Carolina has fallen by about 1.5 percentage points to a five-year low.
At the same time, North Carolina saw its biggest drop ever in workforce participation, suggesting that most of the explanation for the drop is that people just quit looking for work, as Evan Soltas explained for Bloomberg. It’s important to determine why cutting benefits pushed the rate down, but there’s little doubt that it did.
And here’s how politicians from both parties can win politically, even as the unemployed lose.
For Republicans, the drop in the unemployment rate gets touted as proof of their anti-safety net worldview. “More people got off unemployment and either got jobs or moved back to where they were going or came from,” North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory said last weekend when asked why his state’s unemployment rate dropped.
That’s no help to Tar Heel Democrats, who have been relegated to the governing minority. But nationally, if the trend follows, then the White House and congressional Democrats can point to the falling unemployment rate as evidence that their shepherding of the economic recovery for the past five years has been successful. And the drop in the rate would happen just as candidates are gearing up for the election.
So far, Democrats don’t seem to be taking that bait. They desperately want to pass an extension of unemployment benefits for more important reasons (you know, helping people). But if and when that effort fails, there’s at least a political silver lining for them waiting — as long as they’re willing to paper over the fact that the workforce participation rate has fallen dangerously along with the unemployment rate.
Meanwhile, the long-term unemployed are worse off than ever.
- 1 Hillary Clinton Will Win the Nomination, But Then What?
- 2 Bernie Sanders Is a Loud, Stubborn Socialist. Republicans Like Him Anyway.
- 3 Why Gun Control Can’t Eliminate Gun Violence
- 4 Few Privacy Limitations Exist on How Police Use Drones
- 5 How Politics Breaks Our Brains, and How We Can Put Them Back Together
What We're Following See More »
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.”