How Both Parties Win the Unemployment Debate by Screwing the Unemployed

As long-term unemployed are left out in the cold, Democrats and Republicans will both find political silver linings in Congress’ failure to extend long-term benefits.

NORTH MIAMI, FL - JANUARY 07: A job seeker looks at a list of jobs available as the Senate votes on extending the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program.
National Journal
Alex Seitz-Wald
Jan. 17, 2014, midnight

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.

What We're Following See More »
HE ‘WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT’
Warren Goes After Trump Yet Again
1 hours ago
THE LATEST

When it comes to name-calling among America's upper echelon of politicians, there may be perhaps no greater spat than the one currently going on between Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump. While receiving an award Tuesday night, she continued a months-long feud with the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. Calling him a "small, insecure moneygrubber" who probably doesn't know three things about Dodd-Frank, she said he "will NEVER be president of the United States," according to her prepared remarks."We don't know what Trump pays in taxes because he is the first presidential nominee in 40 years to refuse to disclose his tax returns. Maybe he’s just a lousy businessman who doesn’t want you to find out that he’s worth a lot less money than he claims." It follows a long-line of Warren attacks over Twitter, Facebook and in interviews that Trump is a sexist, racist, narcissistic loser. In reply, Trump has called Warren either "goofy" or "the Indian"—referring to her controversial assertion of her Native American heritage. 

FIRST CHANGE IN FOUR DECADES
Congress Passes Chemical Regulations Overhaul
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS

The House on Tuesday voted 403-12 "to pass an overhaul to the nation’s chemical safety standards for the first time in four decades. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act aims to answer years of complaints that the Environmental Protection Agency lacks the necessary authority to oversee and control the thousands of chemicals being produced and sold in the United States. It also significantly clamps down on states’ authorities, in an effort to stop a nationwide patchwork of chemical laws that industry says is difficult to deal with."

Source:
NO MORE INDEPENDENT VOTERS?
GOP Could Double Number of Early Primaries
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Leaders of the Republican Party have begun internal deliberations over making fundamental changes to the way its presidential nominees are chosen, a recognition that the chaotic process that played out this year is seriously flawed and helped exacerbate tensions within the party." Among the possible changes: forbidding independent voters to cast ballots in Republican primaries, and "doubling the number of early states to eight."

Source:
LEVERAGE
Kasich Tells His Delegates to Remain Pledged to Him
6 hours ago
THE LATEST

Citing the unpredictable nature of this primary season and the possible leverage they could bring at the convention, John Kasich is hanging onto his 161 delegates. "Kasich sent personal letters Monday to Republican officials in the 16 states and the District of Columbia where he won delegates, requesting that they stay bound to him in accordance with party rules."

Source:
EFFECTIVE NEXT MONTH
House GOP Changes Rules for Spending Measures
6 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Speaker Paul Ryan is changing the rules of how the House will consider spending measures to try to prevent Democrats from offering surprise amendments that have recently put the GOP on defense. ... Ryan announced at a House GOP conference meeting Tuesday morning that members will now have to submit their amendments ahead of time so that they are pre-printed in the Congressional Record, according to leadership aides." The change will take effect after the Memorial Day recess.

Source:
×