This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
H.R. 5618 - Extending Unemployment Benefits– A Bad Bill
The House passed H.R. 5618 on Friday along party lines. This bill would
extend unemployment benefits to November 2010. To see if your
congressperson voted for this bad legislation see this list.
I have two major objections to the bill. First is that this is not “pay
go” and second this is all about politics and an election.
The House bill was structured as an “emergency” spending bill. This
designation allows for it to be exempt from the pay go rules. I am one
of those who think that the biggest emergency the country faces is the
size of the budget deficit. This bill would add $34 billion to our debt
load. Here is how the CBO scored it.
If the Senate passes this bill it would extend benefits to the end of
November. Gee, that is a convenient time. Just a few weeks past the
critical bi-elections. This bill has little to do with structural
unemployment. It is about buying votes and trying to sustain political
control of Congress. Those that support/vote for it will say that they
are doing so to help the unemployed. Actually it is just more bad
legislation. This is about politics, not economics.
The Senate has gone on a ten-day holiday and will pick up the proposed
legislation when they return. The vote will be on party lines. As of
this weekend that means the White House has 57 of the 60 votes needed to
pass. Olympia Snowe (R. Ma.) has indicated she will support it.
Therefore they are two votes shy. If this deal clears the Senate and
becomes law it would mean that two Republican Senators had their arms
twisted, that or they had their political palms greased with some form
of side deal. Washington at its worst.
Does it matter that we are adding another $34b to our debt load when the
debt is already $14 trillion? Not really. This only increases our debt
by a ¼%. It is equivalent to about 20 days of interest. We are in so
deep at this point that $34b is a very small number. How is that
possible?
I think the outcome of this legislation is important in a number of
respects. It will influence markets and the economy.
-If passed, it will be a weight on the dollar. Outside of the US every
country is singing fiscal conservatism. We stand out in the opposite
camp. Passage of this bill will be reflected in the capitol markets.
-If enacted it will have some short-term beneficial impacts. It will
keep consumption going for a bit longer. More I-phones will be bought,
the number of defaults will be a bit less, there will be some monthly
data released that will hide some of the weakness.
-The President’s fiscal commission will release its results on December
1st. The day after the extension of benefits will expire and three weeks
after the election. There is no way this temporary extension will be
extended at that point. Either we hit a wall then or we hit a wall now.
The President and the legislative side of D.C. will not be able to avoid
the recommendations of the fiscal commission.
-If this bill is not passed it will accelerate the slowdown that now
seems to be coming at a frightening speed. Consider these two graphs of
the number of people who will be impacted. By the end of July the number
grows to 3.2mm. These are big numbers. This will show up on Wal-Mart’s
sales. It will show up everywhere. Consumption will drop. Landlords will
not get paid. Confidence will drop. Markets will drop. Federal and
State revenues will drop. Deficits will rise. Debt will rise. These
things will happen sooner versus later. H.R. 5618 just buys a few
months.
»
- advertisements -
I think that Republicans should stand against this bill, but permit a few, such as the Maine twins and maybe one other to let the bill pass. If we succeed in stopping the bill, all fall elections will show the Republicans as heartless beasts. The bill simply guarantees that those folks on unemployment will actively not seek jobs. The real important thing is for Republicans to not pass any cap n trade, any energy bill, any bill on financial reform, or any other major bill. Otherwise, the lame duck congress will make sure that Obama's agenda is enacted before the new congress. The time to cut back on all social spending is January 25, at the same time we keep the Bush tax cuts and lower cap gains. Low taxes, low spending, and small government. The time for budget pain is next Spring.
It's really too bad that Republicans are as bad at arithmetic as Democrats. Why don't you stand up and admit that as long as the unemployment checks keep coming, no one will take a job that pays less than one fricking half as much as their previous job paid. Yes liers, one fricking half.
Jeezus! If there's not a job out there that pays frickin' half what you used to make, then all y'all lose, and it's time to have banksters dangling from lampposts.
You presume that everyone can take the 50% cut, legally or willingly.
Now you want to forcibly break the will of the unemployed, so they take risks that nobody else wants to take?
I draw my line at 0% cut and hold firm with any means. I'm not going to take Third World wages or conditions just because the GOP says I should.
Wow, thanks for enlightening me. I see in you the embodiment of entitlement. You actually believe it is the business owner/government/world etc. etc. who OWES you a job because they have a "social obligation", and that is their purpose. You actually believe this and you plan your days and your life around it!!!! Your only hope for survival will be your mommy or to work for the government. You are in a delusion in relation to the private marketplace.
Hey guess what? Your earning power has already been cut. I am self-employed and my earning power has been cut - I earned like 20% to 30% of "normal" last month. Deal with it and get your nose outta everyone else's ass. I am not alone, but of course we are not counted as unemployed or under-employed...
I go into lots of apts and I see LOTS of guys sitting at home playing vidoe games or watching cable TV. They say they have been unemployed for a long time. I know they are discouraged, but I've wondered if they would be so discouraged if there wasn't a check in the mailbox every month. Another thing - one guy and his GF were in a 2Br/2.5Bth Townhome that was like $1,250/month in rent.... Bet when his bennies run out they manage to live in a 1Br apt? Just guessing ;)
Hardly that case at all. I barely spend as it is, and have yet to consider the time a vacation at all.
With that said, I have no obligation to give up any ground that I cannot make up. Nor anything that resembles an obligation. For what ground I do have, I am defending it only out of the lack of willingness on the other end of the table. They want to force my hand when they're waiting for political favor to turn their way.
I'd not mind knowing if the other end is willing at all, or just a question of price. It has been long enough that I honestly don't think there's willingness.
I'm drawing the line at 0% as a test of legitimacy on the employer.
70% cut in pay would be illegal.
50% would be illegal.
10%-40%, is the territory of very unscrupulous employers.
>0%-5% is squabbling over cents.
Self-employment may be fine for you, but you have plenty of room to negotiate. However, not all of us have a desire to throw any stability out the window with said type of employment. Nor do I have any desire to make disposability any easier on their end towards me.
I got it. You are part of a union--probably in the governmen or public sector. Consequently you have no clue as to how real people in in the real economy function. Yours is the view of the european socialist---that the government exists to make sure that you don't surrender one inch in the class struggle.
Your thinking is permeated with ignorance. If you actually had the guts to be self-employed, you would know how stupid your comment is: "Self-employment may be fine for you, but you have plenty of room to negotiate. However, not all of us have a desire to throw any stability out the window with said type of employment." Ridiculous, like a spoiled kid.
Hot off the press from GS:
Goldman Sachs warns on global economic slowdown Fresh fears over a global economic slowdown were raised on Saturday after Goldman Sachs' chief economist warned that data from China and the US revealed that any recovery was facing a "challenging period" and that evidence from America was "troubling".http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7870324/Goldman-Sachs-warns...
BK says:
The President and the legislative side of D.C. will not be able to avoid the recommendations of the fiscal commission.
Wanna bet?
The history of these commissions is that they recommend prudent things that get ignored. I am ignoring this commission. As if we need a commission to tell the Feds to spend less and/or tax more. What it is going to say has probably already been decided, with the details now being negotiated. And note they are getting more money, I think in large part to better publicize their useless recommendations.
Good Bill... Pass it! Why should the working class who has payed into this government from day one of employment be told sorry we can fund wars , minority causes but you workers bees are shit out of time.
The problem Segestan, isn't so much the substance of the bill, but finding a way to pay for it. Do you really believe that in the U.S.'s nearly 4 trillion dollar budget, we can't find a way to trim .0085% ?
The working class pays taxes? I thought it was mostly the wealthy.
Yes, Segestan. Two wrongs DO make a right.
Or, in prole-speak... "I don't really give a shit about them, as long as I get mine, and somebody else has to pay for it."
Umhmm.
Sorry, Bruce, but the only thing political about unemployment is your posturing over what is a pittance compared to everything else. Will you have the same stance on all sorts of other issues. I doubt it. But, prove me wrong. Prove something to yourself.
Don't recall using the word pittance. I am not making light of our situation. I'm listening. What would you do? Pay $34b to try to maintain the political status quo or stop checks for 3mm people? This is an example of how desperate we are and that we really do not have many options.
How long should benefits last? 2 years? 5? Tell me.
It does not look to me that we can afford even the one year.
I would write this check to help these people out. But I want paygo. If this is that important find the $34b someplace else.
I would set it at 18 months.
you go Bruce... solid.
A Democrat is a Republican who's been unemployed.
What a drole comment. So, A Republican is a Democrat with a job?
Try to understand that we are all just butts in a seat (voter) wearing a league-licensed jersey. Stop rooting for your team (red or blue), and learn to hate the league and its owners.
If you think of it, that does make some sense.
They get a job, pay taxes, then discover how badly those taxes hurt them.
No matter what they tell you Republicans still giggle and chortle about being able to spend other people's money.
There's a reason Ron Paul is called 'Dr. No'.
So what's the alternative? Telling 3 million people to move into tents and beg for food? If you're worried about it adding to the deficit, surely we can repeal the zero percent tax rate on estates this year, that should cover it.
Most ineligible for unemployment are moving in with relatives if they haven't found more than P/T work.
So what's the alternative?
Maybe some people will get mad enough to separate their asses from their couches this November.
The 0% estate tax is expiring in less that 6mos. anyway. Wealth confiscation, yeah, they've already thought of that.
I'll tell you what the 3 million need to do. They need to find their relatives and move in with them and help around the house and get some community back, some self-reliance. I would rather have social security REPEALED and have my dad move in with me and I will be glad to pay his bills than give my money to the IRS every month and have them take their cut before they hand it on to him all the more diminished. I hate the government telling me how I can and should be charitable or how I should contribute to their ponzi scheme for my retirement , on and on and on. It is an outrage. Listen, when they change the social security age I should be able to call them up and say, "excuse me , but i've changed my mind, I don't want to participate any more, you can keep the money i've given just leave me alone and i'll go on my way" . The fact I can't do that means I am a SLAVE..... and no amount of printing money will change THAT either.
thank god someone out there is awake...
you give me hope.
(and someone junked you... good lord help us all)
Think through the principles involved! Why NOT just make unemployment benefits permanent then, if halting them is gonna cause pain? See anything wrong with that? I do!
At this point, you might as well, since the other side of the table isn't willing to hire.
They just want to say:
"Let the unemployed feel pain, because I shouldn't - I'm a business owner gosh darn it!"
Followed by:
"They should be at the point where they feel grateful they have a job. Why should I care about their dignity, it doesn't contribute to my bottom line. A hungry worker sure does!"
I don't see people getting any work, but I do see a lot of people trying to wait out hiring them. Some of them aren't exactly the small business that is unstable.
so seth, do you *really* think a business owner's job is to hire people out of some friggin social obligation? really?
if you *cost* me more than you *make* me in my business, you are ... ... (wait for it) ... ... ... fired!!!
ding ding ding ding!
this has nothing to do with sympathy. it either makes sense and is sustainable, or ... THE BUSINESS GOES BROKE - OOOOOPS then no jobs for ANYBODY!!!!
wow. was that so hard to understand? (don't answer that)
you idiots act like the average business is just friggin rolling in the dough with ooodles of product and shipments hitting the shelves each day, all produced in factories run by magic oompa-loompas in the back doing the work for free... and we just don't feel like paying for help. unbelievable
bzzzztttt - wrong. nobody's buying chit, and employees with mandatory benefits are driving those few standing companies into the toilets.
you guys must work for the county, state, or fed. if so - *you* friggin send the IRS a few more buckaroos than you owe them, and tell them to spend your donation to help 'solve the unemployment problem' (yah, and show me the canceled check... NOT GONNA HAPPEN)
Yow, you have an epic amount of callousness.
so seth, do you *really* think a business owner's job is to hire people out of some friggin social obligation
At one time, it didn't take force for them to do exactly that. Nowadays, you have them screaming bloody murder if you even get to a fraction of that. This isn't aimed towards the honest folk that are indeed struggling, but towards those who really think it's fine and dandy to let the unemployed hang out to dry. Then lord over them when things get desperate and work them to death.
you idiots act like the average business is just friggin rolling in the dough with ooodles of product and shipments hitting the shelves each day, all produced in factories run by magic oompa-loompas in the back doing the work for free... and we just don't feel like paying for help. unbelievable
Right now, there is a LOT of parked capital and a lot of refusal to deploy it in the US. Business wouldn't mind if there was a ready amount people that did work for nothing - or very close to it - in Third World conditions.
bzzzztttt - wrong. nobody's buying chit, and employees with mandatory benefits are driving those few standing companies into the toilets.
You're looking more like the person in my argument. You want rock-bottom prices and conditions and are willing to use anything to get there. That includes not offering work or assistance until the unemployed have hit a point where their will is broken and drudgery is accepted wholesale.
It wouldn't have to be mandatory if they did the right thing in the first place. You seem to think that business ownership gives you more right to complain for better conditions vs. the unemployed. You're ok with forcing the hand of the unemployed, but don't be asked to move from your position.
you guys must work for the county, state, or fed. if so - *you* friggin send the IRS a few more buckaroos than you owe them, and tell them to spend your donation to help 'solve the unemployment problem' (yah, and show me the canceled check... NOT GONNA HAPPEN)
I don't work for any government. Right now, I don't work for anybody, and I'm quite frustrated at various levels of callousness towards the unemployed. It seems like they are viewed as trash in need of disposal, and that magically taking benefits away will solve the problem. I am simply saying to those who want to kill the extensions to put up jobs in good faith or shut up and support extensions until they do. Not stuff through some temp/staffing agency or high-churn work, but direct employment at wages that make unemployment worth leaving.
Besides, the IRS isn't going to read that request, but they'll gladly take the cash. What has likely happened is that said cash went to their paycheck.
appreciating your measured response, and with honest sympathy for your situation (which may soon be mine as well) ...
apology on my tone, but my position stands.
this judgment by those "in the water" against those in their full lifeboats who don't feel compelled to pull everyone else into their boats is understandable, but arguably irrational - if you assume those floating boats will also sink should they take on more passengers, to take that course of action is lunatic. and i'm truly sorry you're in the water.
there's simply not enough room in the boats. and we needn't *all* die for some irrational social ideal. that would be simply stupid. perhaps i am callous, but i built my boat for me. mine. my boat. me. my family first. if it sinks... sucks to be me, and i hope i can find an empty boat, but i expect no seat in a full one.
as a 'paygo' human who has always assumed that *nothing* is guaranteed (save gravity), i have always lived an audit-ably 'lessor' lifestyle than most around me (no big-ass truck with $400 tires, or lexus, or ... never owned a new car. never will), in order to keep my buffers up, and maintain the stores on *my* lifeboat.
i'd love to save everyone! really! but if i *know* that not everyone can be saved (fact), i have no problem letting others who went too far on their personal "risk management ships" go down with the ships of their own making. no problem at all. hell, i have no problem letting innocent strangers with cruddy luck go down too. it's theirs or mine, but not both. somehow i'm callous to save mine? i'd consider martyrdom if my sacrifice would save many, but me vs you? bye-bye. try that boat over there.
if you're in the water... somewhere you had bad luck (new hire - first to go), or made a bad choice, industry, geography, company, department... i'm sure this recession wasn't your fault, but there were many realtors doing just fine, 'till they weren't. the choices we make.
i owe you nothing. no job, no food, no advice. never will. good luck though. i don't wish you ill. just better planning next time should you get the chance. and i expect nothing from anyone when i'm in the water. that is what most fail to realize or believe.
sadly your type will typically paint us as the types that would keep an empty seat rather than save a stranger... far from it. can't even save all those i know and love.
i suppose i am "epic callous", though i prefer the term 'pragmatic', but... folks need to get used to this trend, as the battle between the preppers and the hope-ers unfolds. and if you resent that attitude enough to try and come take it, i assure you i've also prepped to defend it.
again, sorry for my tone - it's hard for my small mind to understand the "entitlment" mentality, and i get irate.
best wishes in your ability to provide value to your community. it really is that simple.
My biggest concern is that we do this and protect the 3mm people for a few more months. That pushes the problem forward 4-5 months. Then in December 6mm people will fall off an edge.
This is going to be hard, regardless of how we do it. But if we push it off with 4 month measures we will just fall harder.
What we are doing is not sustainable. There is no plan B.
Tax high SS earners to pay for EUI-it's neutral, one transfer payment to another. I mean, does John McCain really need his social security checks?
+1 Why is this reality so hard to grasp?
delete
Borrowing hundreds of billions to invade Iraq was unsustainable. Doing it while cutting taxes for the rich was even more unsustainable. How many billions to rebuild after Katrina? I don't remember anyone grumbling about pay-go, nor do I remember tax increases to cover that bill either. Then came the bailouts, which, let's face it, saved the wealthy. At least there was some grumbling about 'morale peril', but I don't remember anyone crying about pay-go, nor do I recall any of the Bush tax cuts being repealed to cover it.
I can agree that we need to sit down and have a serious discussion about plan B. You are correct that we can't have people on the public dole for 10 years, which seems to be where we are fast heading to. We need to discuss how much military spending we can afford, how much social spending we can afford, what we are going to do to create some jobs in this country, and what an appropriate level of taxation is given the money we want to spend.
Back in the 80's when Reagan and the conservatives promised us that tax cuts would 'starve the beast' and bring us to the promised land, this country bought into it hook, line and sinker. Well, here we are in 2010, are we truly better off? What I see is a pile of unsustainable debt, greater wealth disparity, and an economy that simply can't sustain job growth. If you want to know where to get the money for unemployment benefits, the wealthy have done quite well, they can pony up - starting with reinstating the estate tax this year.
You left out the part where the Democratic Congress--controlled by Tip O'Neil--refused to cut spending to match Reagan's tax cuts. Reagan's budgets included spending cuts. This would have "starved the beast" at the same time that tax cuts stimulated the productive side of the economy, which the data shows actually happened.
The unfortunate side to Reaganomics was the inference, since the world did not explode due to the burgeoning budget deficits that have continued pretty much unabated since then, that "deficits don't matter." Maybe they don't, for awhile, if you happen to have the world's reserve currency. But they do eventually when the numbers get large enough, as Karl Denninger, amoung others, has pointed out relentlessly--the end of The Ponzi. And we are within spitting distance of a huge currency or bond crisis as a result.
a coupla tolerable points int here, but c'mon, a lot of different and incomplete plans have been 'executed' since the 80s...
your argument is ludicrous. (am i better off in 2010 because of what Reagan did? good f-n lord.)
and we're talking trillions here. katrina and 10x BP are both in the *noise* compared to the destruction the current clowns are engaging in right now.
don't even start to point at any one of the last 15 administrations - they're *all* complicit. D/R same party, same system, same result. 2000 page bills ought to be a hint as to the real problem.
+++ Bingo! I know there are a lot of people out there who hate the idea of safety nets, but given the current situation, it will ultimately be more costly - from a public safety standpoint - to pull out the rug (net). I also think it is a moral hazard after feeding the pigs at the trough.
Unfortunately, Obama, Timmy, and friends decided to shove $10+ Trillion in an attempt to plug the financial black holes of the banksters and line their personal pockets with billions. If they had let those damn institutions die, while protecting depositors, we'd have been a lot better off.
We need safety nets.
We need lending to small/med businesses & R&D groups.
We need innovation.
We need to get comfortable with a lower standard-of-living (which could also be a higher level-of-living - e.g. with the Cable off, families might start to talk).
That is the classic liberal argument on welfare programs - we can never, never end them or even scale them back or the alternative will be much, much worse. A convenient argument. I think the pain would be useful because it would force the affected people to finally demand change from their bought and paid for politicians. As long as you're getting $2400 a month for not working (the max in my state) you are much more willing to be a passive observer.
I believe the point is that 3 million are going to move into tents and beg for food regardless of the outcome of this bill.
The choice seems to be crashing into a brick wall at a hundred miles an hour, or shooting yourself in the head right before you hit the wall. You decide. I'm pretty much past giving a shit anymore.
No, the real point is we already hit the wall, unfortunately Congress and Obummer are acting like if we pretend hard enough we can change. A better analogy is that the dike has too many holes, the fissures are spreading and the integrity of the system is compromised. Obummer and Pelosi say if we just stick a finger in this hole, in 6 months all will be well and good.
or phrased a differnt way:
So what's the alternative? How about PayGo? How about telling those unfortunate millions that they will be joining the millions of others who no longer qualify for benefita and have dropped off the radar? How about telling those on both sides of the argument that their political apathy has allowed the economy to be run into the ground by gangster politicians and banksters? How about telling your next door neighbor what the PIN code is to your ATM card?
There is no alternative. You can thank the super-sized American nightmare that most Americans have been "enjoying" all these years. So why piss away more funds and prolong the inevitable? Politics.
+100000000
Wow. A Greek socialist. Imagine that.
goldsilverdoc
that's pretty funny.
i want to see the cancelled canadian check from Leo that helps the unemployed of his choice (pick a country - anywhere).
otherwise Leo, just shut your arrogant trap.
feel free to spend your own cash to solve the problems your way. stay the f--- outta my wallet. i'll do my own stimulating, thank you very much.
OPA!
President of India gets a pay of 100,000 Rs or 2000$ a month
And US workers get paid 1600$ for not working for 24 months
Truth is stranger than fiction!
Well put, Leo. Let's reduce the Federal Reserve Note to 0.000000001% of its current value.