The Costs of Paying for Unemployment Insurance

WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 17: U.S. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) (3rd R) talks to reporters after a vote December 17, 2013 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The Senate has passed a cloture vote to clear the way for a final vote of the Ryan-Murray Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013.   
National Journal
Fawn Johnson
Add to Briefcase
Fawn Johnson
Jan. 6, 2014, 4:28 p.m.

Re­pub­lic­ans are throw­ing a wrench in­to the de­bate over un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits by in­sist­ing that spend­ing cuts off­set any ex­ten­sion of fed­er­al aid for the long-term job­less.

It’s a con­ver­sa­tion shift that makes Demo­crats nervous. Once you start bat­tling over how to pay for something, le­gis­lat­ive talks be­come a new ball game. Passing the bill is no longer a brute battle of polit­ic­al wills. It’s a trad­ing match.

A bill to provide a three-month ex­ten­sion of un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits for people who have been out of work for more than six months has been sched­uled for a vote Tues­day, after harsh weath­er pre­ven­ted more than a dozen sen­at­ors from mak­ing it to the Cap­it­ol on Monday even­ing. The meas­ure needs 60 votes to move for­ward, and it’s a high hurdle. The pro­vi­sion car­ries a cost of $6.4 bil­lion over 10 years, and con­ser­vat­ives aren’t will­ing to go there.

That didn’t stop Demo­crats from scold­ing them. “What are you go­ing to tell the 1,600 people in Hager­stown, Mary­land, and those across the coun­try, who are des­per­ately look­ing for work? What are you go­ing to tell them?” de­man­ded Sen. Jack Reed, the Rhode Is­land Demo­crat who sponsored the un­em­ploy­ment bill with Re­pub­lic­an Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada.

Re­pub­lic­ans are, however, will­ing to dis­cuss ex­tend­ing un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits if they don’t bur­den fed­er­al cof­fers. Even Sen. Rand Paul of Ken­tucky said Sunday that he is open to ex­tend­ing un­em­ploy­ment in­sur­ance as long as it is paid for. House Speak­er John Boehner told the White House a month ago that he would go along with an un­em­ploy­ment ex­ten­sion if it was off­set. Boehner also wants an un­em­ploy­ment bill to in­clude oth­er pro­vi­sions to cre­ate jobs (and, he notes, the House has passed a bundle of them).

The Re­pub­lic­ans’ de­mands are com­plic­at­ing the un­em­ploy­ment is­sue for Demo­crats, who ar­gue that ex­ten­ded un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits have been in ex­ist­ence since the late 1950s and have gen­er­ally not been off­set since 1972. The ex­cep­tions to that rule were in 2009, 2011, and 2012, when the ex­ten­sions were part of lar­ger le­gis­lat­ive pack­ages that in­cluded tax off­sets. For ex­ample, the 2009 un­em­ploy­ment ex­ten­sion was part of the Work­er, Homeown­er­ship, and Busi­ness As­sist­ance Act.

For Demo­crats, set­ting a pre­ced­ent that fed­er­al long-term un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits must be paid for opens up a can of trouble. It means that the be­ne­fits are no longer driv­en by eco­nom­ic and em­ploy­ment con­di­tions but by the con­di­tion of the fed­er­al budget. Gen­er­ally, tight-em­ploy­ment eco­nom­ies trans­late to tight budgets, which means it be­comes in­fin­itely harder for law­makers to ap­prove ad­di­tion­al be­ne­fits.

“Quite frankly, I thought it was a mis­take when we off­set it be­fore. It should not be off­set,” said Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., who over­saw the un­em­ploy­ment-com­pens­a­tion pro­gram when he was in the House.

Cardin also ar­gues, cor­rectly, that ex­ten­ded un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits give a short-term boost to the eco­nomy of about 0.2 per­cent of GDP — not enough to off­set the cost, but it is something.

Demo­crats have not com­pletely closed the door on off­sets, which con­fuses the mat­ter. Rep. Sander Lev­in, D-Mich., the rank­ing mem­ber on the House Ways and Means Com­mit­tee, and Rep. Chris Van Hol­len, D-Md., rank­ing mem­ber on the Budget Com­mit­tee, offered late last year to off­set a short-term un­em­ploy­ment ex­ten­sion us­ing rev­en­ues raised from the farm bill, but there is no sign that their pro­pos­al will come up again this year.

House Demo­crats now are pre­par­ing to pres­sure — or per­haps shame — Re­pub­lic­ans in­to think­ing they have to sup­port an ex­ten­sion without an ac­com­pa­ny­ing spend­ing cut, aides say. Ways and Means Demo­crats are work­ing on an un­em­ploy­ment “counter” that will show a run­ning tally of the num­ber of job­less people who have ex­hausted their be­ne­fits. (It’s run­ning at about 7 per second.)

And the pres­sure tac­tics are work­ing. Sev­er­al Re­pub­lic­ans in both the House and the Sen­ate have called for some type of ne­go­ti­ation to al­low an un­em­ploy­ment ex­ten­sion to con­tin­ue. They just don’t want to give away the ex­ten­sion for free, which is ex­actly what Demo­crats are re­quest­ing.

Budget hawks, however, can be just as stub­born as lib­er­als. They note that even if ex­ten­ded un­em­ploy­ment be­ne­fits passed muster as emer­gency spend­ing in 2008, when the eco­nomy was col­lapsing, it’s been more than five years since then. It’s hard to ar­gue that it’s an emer­gency now.

“If the state [un­em­ploy­ment] fund goes in­to de­fi­cit, they can bor­row in the short term, but they’ve got to pay it back. Ul­ti­mately there has to be a bal­ance. They have to make tough de­cisions,” said Chris Ed­wards, the CATO In­sti­tute’s dir­ect­or of tax-policy stud­ies. “I think it’s a good idea. It en­sures re­spons­ib­il­ity.”

Mi­chael Cata­lini con­trib­uted

What We're Following See More »
PASSAGE NOT GUARANTEED
House Freedom Caucus Endorses Obamacare Replacement
26 minutes ago
BREAKING

After more than a month of back and forth, a failed bill, and GOP embarrassment, the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus has announced that it will support the Obamacare replacement legislation in its most recent iteration. Rep. Mark Meadows, the chairman of the caucus, said the roughly 30 members of the caucus view this compromise as the best option short of a full repeal. A recent amendment, authored by Meadows and Rep. Tom McArthur, co-chair of the more moderate Tuesday Group, would allow states to apply for waivers exempting them from provisions forbidding insurers from charging higher prices to those with pre-existing conditions if the state set up a high-risk pool. The plan's passage in the House is not a done deal though, as a number of moderate lawmakers have resisted supporting the amendment.

COULD RATTLE MARKETS
White House Working On Order To Leave NATO
1 hours ago
BREAKING
IRANIANS CAME WITHIN 1,000 METERS
U.S. Navy Vessel Fired Flare at Iranian Boat on Monday
2 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"A U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer fired a warning flare toward an Iranian Revolutionary Guard vessel coming near it in the Persian Gulf. The incident happened Monday as the vessel closed to within 1,000 meters of the USS Mahan, "despite the destroyer trying to turn away from it." After attempting to contact the Iranian vessel and sounding its whistle, it deployed the flare. After that, the ship had had enough and turned away.

Source:
ON SANCTUARY CITIES
White House Attacks Judge Who Suspended Executive Order
2 hours ago
THE DETAILS

U.S. District Judge William Orrick Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing part of an executive order calling for the end of federal funding to so-called sanctuary cities. The decision was followed by a scathing rebuke from the White House, a precedent-breaking activity which with this White House has had no qualms. A White House statement called the decision an "egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge." The statement was followed by an inaccurate Wednesday morning tweetstorm from Trump, which railed against the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While Judge Orrick's district falls within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, Orrick himself does not serve on the Ninth Circuit.

MAY BRING CONSERVATIVES ON BOARD, BUT WHAT ABOUT MODERATES?
House GOP Circulates Amendment on Preexisting Conditions
5 hours ago
THE LATEST

"House Republicans are circulating the text of an amendment to their ObamaCare replacement bill that they believe could bring many conservatives on board. According to legislative text of the amendment," drafted by Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ), "the measure would allow states to apply for waivers to repeal one of ObamaCare’s core protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Conservatives argue the provision drives up premiums for healthy people, but Democrats—and many more moderate Republicans—warn it would spark a return to the days when insurance companies could charge sick people exorbitantly high premiums."

×
×

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.

Login