Has the Federal Government Given Up on Solving the Jobs Crisis?

Washington lawmakers act like the extension of emergency unemployment benefits is about gaining political advantage, with little thought to a broader plan to put millions of Americans back to work.

Philip McGonigle stands in line at a jobs fair, after meeting with potential employers on Jan. 17, 2013 in New York City. 
National Journal
Jan. 8, 2014, 7:11 a.m.

Har­vey Hol­brooks, the hold­er of an M.B.A. with 20 years of ex­per­i­ence in the health care field, nev­er ima­gined he’d find him­self out of a job for this long.

Janu­ary marks the first an­niversary of get­ting laid off from his po­s­i­tion at a nurs­ing-home health care com­pany, where he man­aged doc­tors and med­ic­al staff. “I’m dev­ast­ated. I spent all of this money and time to get an edu­ca­tion only to find out that it has be­come worth­less to me,” the 53-year-old says from his Pennsylvania home. “You wake up and look for jobs. Then, do you everything again.”

Hol­brooks’s frus­tra­tion is not unique this week, as 1.3 mil­lion Amer­ic­ans face the ex­pir­a­tion of fed­er­al emer­gency un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits, which provided an av­er­age of $300 a week. Hol­brooks’s checks stopped on Dec. 28. Now, he’s scram­bling to bor­row money from fam­ily, con­sid­er­ing cut­ting off his In­ter­net ser­vice, and driv­ing less to save money on gas. “I’m mak­ing phone calls to beg and bor­row,” he says. He’d take any job. “I will work for $7 an hour, plus tips. I’m grate­ful and do­ing cartwheels if someone calls and just says come in for an in­ter­view.”

These per­son­al stor­ies can get lost as Wash­ing­ton law­makers wrangle for polit­ic­al ad­vant­age over a pro­posed three-month ex­ten­sion of un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits, a move that would cost the gov­ern­ment $6.5 bil­lion and faces long odds for pas­sage. What’s even more wor­ri­some to eco­nom­ists and un­em­ployed work­ers is how far the broad­er war on job­less­ness has slipped from the Wash­ing­ton agenda.

“Sadly, I ex­pec­ted this to hap­pen. For a lot of voters and policy makers, it is out of sight and out of mind,” says Gary Burt­less, a former Labor De­part­ment eco­nom­ist. “The un­em­ploy­ment situ­ation is not re­garded as a crisis. In­stead, we have moved onto oth­er things like the stock mar­ket rising or Bey­once selling a new al­bum.”

The un­em­ploy­ment crisis is quite alive, however, for the 4.1 mil­lion Amer­ic­ans who’ve been out of work for more than six months. They com­prise about 37 per­cent of un­em­ployed people. The sur­ging stock mar­ket and oth­er re­newed signs of health in the U.S. eco­nomy only serve as re­mind­ers that they are miss­ing out on the re­cov­ery.

While ex­tend­ing fed­er­al un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits would pre­vent many from be­com­ing des­ti­tute in the short term, it would not solve struc­tur­al eco­nom­ic prob­lems that have kept the un­em­ploy­ment rate close to 7 per­cent. It also would not ease the stigma of long-term un­em­ploy­ment, pre­vent dis­crim­in­a­tion for older work­ers, or of­fer re­train­ing for people whose skills fall short. Fight­ing those deep­er prob­lems re­quires solu­tions that are barely on the radar in Con­gress.

“We know what it would take. It would take more job cre­ation,” says Harry Holzer, a pro­fess­or of pub­lic policy at Geor­getown Uni­versity and former chief eco­nom­ist for the Labor De­part­ment. “Those are doable things if the polit­ic­al will is there.”

Some House Re­pub­lic­ans, like Speak­er John Boehner, have ex­pressed a will­ing­ness to pass an ex­ten­sion of the fed­er­al un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits, provided Con­gress can find a way to pay for them. What’s miss­ing is dis­cus­sion of cre­at­ing new jobs through in­fra­struc­ture pro­jects, re­viv­ing tax cred­its for busi­nesses to hire people who’ve been out of work, or part­ner­ing with com­munity col­leges to de­vel­op job train­ing for spe­cif­ic re­gions or sec­tors.

Be­hind closed doors, the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion has been de­bat­ing ways that it could use ex­ec­ut­ive or­ders to help the long-term un­em­ployed by work­ing more closely with loc­al and state em­ploy­ment of­fices and ca­reer cen­ters, ac­cord­ing to a former ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cial and Holzer, who has at­ten­ded a few brain­storm­ing ses­sions. The only prob­lem with this plan is that any real ef­forts, not at the mar­gins, would re­quire cash, and Con­gress con­trols the money.

At least one con­ser­vat­ive eco­nom­ist is call­ing for a dif­fer­ent set of pri­or­it­ies from both the GOP and Demo­crats. In­stead of ob­sess­ing about debt and health care, re­spect­ively, they should be ex­tend­ing un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits and giv­ing Amer­ic­ans money to move to states with more jobs. “The No. 1 policy con­cern should not be bring­ing 30 mil­lion more people in­to the private health care sys­tem or the debt 25 years from now. It should be help­ing the un­em­ployed,” says Mi­chael Strain, a res­id­ent schol­ar at the Amer­ic­an En­ter­prise In­sti­tute. “Con­ser­vat­ives are sup­posed to be people who cham­pi­on work.”

Both pro­gress­ives and con­ser­vat­ives should care about the mil­lions of people still out of work, Strain says, be­cause it will af­fect the eco­nomy over the next few dec­ades. People without jobs pay less in taxes. Worse, many of them may end up tak­ing ad­vant­age of gov­ern­ment be­ne­fits like So­cial Se­cur­ity or dis­ab­il­ity earli­er than they nor­mally would have.

These ab­stract ar­gu­ments do not help people like 58-year-old Bar­bara Har­mony of Ohio. Just hours after the Sen­ate voted Tues­day to con­sider a meas­ure to ex­tend the fed­er­al emer­gency un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits, Har­mony sat in her house and wondered how to get through the next few days. After years of work­ing for the state gov­ern­ment, own­ing her own small mail-or­der busi­ness, and work­ing in sales for a util­ity com­pany, Har­mony found her­self out of work. She’d lost her job in mid-April and her fed­er­al emer­gency un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits in late Decem­ber.

She starts to cry a little as she con­siders how she’s go­ing to pay her elec­tric bill this week, or her rent, due on Fri­day. “The elec­tric com­pany is call­ing me to dis­con­nect me,” she says over the phone, her voice crack­ing. “Hon­estly, I’m a very pos­it­ive per­son, but today it just hit me.”

Har­mony is wor­ried about drastic meas­ures that might be re­quired to find a job — like leav­ing be­hind her eld­erly par­ents in Ohio and mov­ing to an­oth­er state. She said she also might start her own con­sult­ing busi­ness to teach people how to open and man­age a small en­ter­prise, like she did for 19 years. She’s try­ing to stay up­beat.

But when asked if she thinks Wash­ing­ton is do­ing enough to help people like her, she chokes up again. “I’m try­ing to fol­low what Con­gress is do­ing, but they don’t work on the most im­port­ant things. They work on their own agenda,” she says. “They are not con­sid­er­ing where the Amer­ic­an people are right now.”

What We're Following See More »
Mueller Agrees to Testify, but Only in Private
2 days ago
Trump Loses in Court Again
4 days ago
Trump Pulls the Plug on Infrastructure
4 days ago
Parties Go to Court Today Over Trump Banking Records
4 days ago
Tillerson Talking to House Foreign Affairs
5 days ago

"Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was spotted entering a congressional office building on Tuesday morning for what a committee aide told The Daily Beast was a meeting with the leaders of the House Foreign Affairs committee and relevant staff about his time working in the Trump administration. ... Tillerson’s arrival at the Capitol was handled with extreme secrecy. No media advisories or press releases were sent out announcing his appearance. And he took a little noticed route into the building in order to avoid being seen by members of the media."


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.