I don't have the knowledge of economics to really go at this, but it's striking to me that it is the poorest states in the union, that are doing their best to deprive their citizens of federal dollars. What a scene.For people like Henry Kight, 59, of Austin, Tex., the possibility that the money might be turned down is a deeply personal issue.
Mr. Kight, who worked for more than three decades as an engineering technician, discovered in September that because of complex state rules, he was not eligible for unemployment insurance after losing a job at a major electronics manufacturer he had landed at the beginning of the year.
Unable to draw jobless benefits, he and his wife have taken on thousands of dollars in credit-card debt to help make ends meet...
Mr. Kight and other unemployed workers said they were incensed to learn they were living in one of a handful of states -- many of them among the poorest in the nation -- that might not provide the expanded benefits...In Mr. Kight's case, he was unemployed for the second half of 2007, after losing an earlier job he had at a different electronics manufacturer in a downsizing. As a result, when he applied for unemployment benefits, he did not have enough immediate work history to qualify.
"I have worked for so many years, a total of probably 30 years, contributing to the support system that helps people when they get in a tough spot like I'm in," Mr. Kight said. "I haven't needed it too much in the past, but I sure could use it right now."
« More On The Limits Of Umbrage | Main | Ann Coulter's Racist Jab At Bobby Jindal » Denying Unemployment Benies27 Feb 2009 03:00 pm
I think people are laboring under the impression that this is a hand-out to people who don't work. In fact to qualify for unemployment, you have been working and thus have paid money into the very system that you're petitioning for help. It's true that you don't want to create an incentive for people to simply sit home. But there's something sick about attempting to deny unemployment insurance to people who've spent their working lives being taxed for that very insurance:
Comments (30)Post a comment |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Well, the poorest states in the union seem to vote for the most Republicans. It's hardly a surprise that Republicans want to deny the people federal money. They think it's okay to spend it on fighting wars and space invaders and whatnot. But healthcare and education and unemployement benfits? No way. Are you truly surprised by this?
Those states have been guided to be last in Standard of living, health status, education, on and on and on. The fruits of decades of that sort of governance is reflected in the caliber of their elected officials.
I think the point underlined in this piece that should be setting off alarms is their use of credit cards as a means of support. People would be amazed at how quickly you get over not paying your credit bills when its pour money into debt or into shelter, food and medical care.
Because of the false hardass attitude that people who need assistance must "deserve" their situation, over the last decade many support structures have become unusable or difficult to access. More people will be using credit to stay afloat. And if we don't see a turnaround very, very soon - well, let's say the consumer credit crisis will make the mortgage crisis look like a picnic at the lake.
It's alot easier to dump unsecured debt than it is to dump a mortgage.
Speaking as someone who lived there for a number of years, Texas is a great place to live as a "have," but the good life in Texas comes at the expense of the "have nots." For such a Bible-thumping place, it sure doesn't care much about "the least of these."
And that was my perspective a "have." I much prefer the New England version of slightly higher taxes for an expanded social net.
Texas Girl, I don't think TNC was expressing surprise so much as bewilderment. It's like Harry Truman said (and I'm paraphrasing)-- how long are you going to get kicked before you realize who it is that's kicking you?
Don't you wonder how long these poorest of the poor states will continue to vote republican? I know I do. I just hope that this kick (no unemployment benefits) is the last one they take in the butt, and the folks in the south will turn on their elected officials like a pit bull who has been beaten and cornered.
Can you imagine the howl on this if instead of spreading the cost among all of our future taxpayers on this, Obama would have the chutzpah to pay for it directly through a progressive corporate income tax? Unemplyoment insurance really is a part of earned and deferred wages. In the era of bailed out banker bonuses, the "principled conservative" faction of Republicans who don't want unemployment insurance money have an undeniable Scrooge--Bah, Humbug-- about them.
Dressing old Ebeneezer up as Bobby Jindal is a neat trick; unfortunately, Scrooge had more personality.
I dunno, DC Fem. The poorest states have always voted conservative - conservative Dem Dixiecrats years ago, now they vote Republican.
Every time I think they should wake up and smell the coffee it doesn't seem to happen. Why is that? I don't know. People don't seem to be voting their own interests, or even what might be in the best interests of the country.
I can't explain it. I'm sure there are a whole bunch of reasons. But I'm not holding my breath it'll change this time. I think inroads will be made. And if Obama does a good job as President, that may siphon off a few more independent-ish voters. But I don't know if it'll change dramatically.
I think what is going to cause more change is changing demographics in places like Texas. The Hispanic population is growing dramtically. They tend to vote Democratic. A few years ago we had a Latino candidate for mayor and I noticed that spray-painted across his signs in my neighborhood was "Republicano!" It wasn't a compliment. I think demographics will cause states like Texas to change before issues will. Just my 0.02.
Texas Girl, you beat me to it, although I'm not sure that your second assertion logically follows your first one.
America's voters are trending to the left, but it bares mentioning --and this goes to the point you made-- that there in one part of the country, more people voted Republican in 2008 than in 2004. If you had to guess, what part would you say that is?
http://www.rupri.org/Forms/ElectionPolicyBrief.pdf
(page five)
I found this (page six) particularly interesting and, frankly, disingenuous:
I think it's a stretch to say that on balance, rural people, who tend to be culturally conservative, don't identify more closely with the Republican party. I'm also struggling to understand the idea that the economic policies of the past eight years and current economic conditions haven't hurt people in rural America along with those who live in metropolitan areas.
When I hear people like Bobby Jindahl and Mark Sanford tell me how they want to deny benefits to unemployed people, who, for whatever reason, don't qualify for benefits, it drives me nuts! They care much more about their ideology and sucking up to the right-wingers than their own constituents.
OT, but related:
Your guy Jindal LIED about his Katrina anecdote:
Jindal Admits Katrina Story Was False
By Zachary Roth - February 27, 2009, 12:39PM
Jindal lies about Katrina Story
1. I think you meant benefits in your title of the post, Coates.
2. The question a lot of folks during the election season was whether certain White folks would finally vote their economic interests or race. Enough voted their economic interests.
3. I wonder if this is enough. If this is such an obvious example for folks, who had continued to vote against their economic interests, to see - FINALLY - that the GOP has NEVER been in their economic interest, because they weren't in the top 5 percent of earners. We'll see. To watch these mofos try and explain WHY they would turn away UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS. But, you know my position? I believe if you voted against the Stimulus, then your district doesn't need any of this ' socialist' money. Shouldn't give these folks the opportunity to have it both ways. If there was one arena where The President SHOULD be more ' Chicago-like', I wish it was this, and have those Republicans go back to their states to explain why no Stimulus money was coming their way.
Just to point out, TNC, that Texas is one of the states that's actually in relatively decent financial shape right now. That said, our great headpiece, Rick Perry (who has hair as almost as coiffed as Blagojevich's), is one of those blustering on about not taking SOME of the stimulus package.
To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens (though he was speaking about religion), you can't take things like this a la carte.
OT Coates:
1. The Official White House Portrait of the First Lady is out.
2. There is somewhat of a bitchfest going on about the First Lady and her ' bare arms'. Maybe it would interest you, maybe it's just a woman thing. (articles in the NYTimes, White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers commented on today in the piece in the Washington Post.) I think folks are just jealous, but that's just me.
rikyrah, I couldn't agree with your third point more.
EXACTLY.
Thanks rik. Not to encourage jacking, but do you have any links on the second point?
Mark,
Isn't Texas in relatively good shape because of the high price of oil last year? I thought I heard that in some local news. I also think I heard that they expect this year to be a little different unless oil does another runup in price this summer. Pretty Boy Perry is going to have his hands full if the oil coffers run dry.
A lot of the most "conservative" states are regularly net beneficiaries of the federal government, including SC, MS, LA, AK. These states routinely receive much more in federal monies than they send in, and they are being supported by blue states like NJ, CT, NY, CA.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
Missouri is in competition with Louisiana and Mississippi for worst state in nearly every category. Plus we have to pay more for heat and electricity.
Many legislative districts are so gerrymandered that the conservatives have a 70% share in their safe districts. This means the Republican primary is the election for local issues. So, if people want any voice at all in local politics, they must vote in the Republican primary, a closed primary open only to those who register Republican.
In other words, the system is wired. The Republican committee in each county picks the candidates, and any opponent with a chance of winning has to run to win in the primary. A few primary losers have gone on to run as "independents" in the general election. Independent meaning a Republican independent of the county committee, not independent of major party affiliation.
"Cultural" issues here in safe rural Republican districts are often choices between abortion opponents who wish to kill abortion providers and abortion opponents who merely wish to incarcerate them for life. Same for perverts, to use the term very loosely. Deviates had better hide. A local state representative in a more urban area told me he would rather just kill sex offenders than give them life sentences. Those in the post-incarceration civil committment state sex offender treatment center recognize that their lives have been spared. Another more rural state representative told me the Bible says that the government shouldn't provide health care of any kind at all. (Mine doesn't say that.)
We have a state representative that begins his speaking gigs by saying he owns a big gun. He referred to the civil war on the floor of the house of representatives as the "war against Northern agression", and apologized later after demands from a St. Louis area representative, "if it offended anyone."
We have identity churches of the luny but dangerous right wing, and more centrist immigration opponents who hire immigrants for day labor themselves.
The "progressives" here meet at a union hall and carry concealed, and more openly in their pickups's rifle racks. Of course, if you have a union sticker on your bumper here, you need to carry a gun.
One interesting thing is that Missouri recently elected a Democratic governor and re-elected a Republican lieutennant governor, and that we have a US Senator of each persuasion.
Thanks rik. Not to encourage jacking, but do you have any links on the second point?
Voices of Power: Desiree Rogers, Obama's White House CEO
Second Video is specifically about The First Lady
Michelle Obama has the right to bare arms on the Cover of People
From the NYTimes
Michelle Obama Goes Sleeveless again
HuffingtonPost did a piece specifically on the First Lady's bare arms- complete with pictures. (I kid you not.)
rikyrah & TNC
Even funnier, USA Today did a poll about it. This is hilarious.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/fashion/2009-02-26-obama-sleeveless_N.htm
Texas Girl,
Yes, that's part of the reason. Last I heard any SOLID figures on it (a month ago or so), Texas had about a $12bn budget surplus. I would imagine that SOME of that is still left, though with Perry and the Texas legislature, you never know.
I'm not sure about the veracity of the following information, but I believe that we DID lose a substantial portion of that surplus because the public fundraising for the gov mansion renovations was canceled or something like that. Anyway, the taxpayers are footing the bill (involuntarily, though I think it SHOULD be renovated after that awful arson/fire).
Actually this is unsurprising since these are also the "right to work" states that have virtually outlawed unions for the last twenty years. Where the Republican party has dominated the source of Republican campaign money makes the law. Minimal workers compensation insurance cost, no unions, property tax breaks for manufacturing, lax worker safety enforcement, no state pollution controls. Welcome to the New South.
Um, not to seem unsympathetic here, but he's 59. Why doesn't he have any money in the bank?
In earlier times, I was opposed to many government giveaways; I always thought it best to encourage people to go out and find work. But these are not normal times! We're past the point where the people who are losing their homes are "the speculators". Now the newly-homeless are families, with children, who have lived in their homes for decades. And it's so hard to find ANY work in America now, even the illegal immigrants are returning to Mexico. (I often read the Los Angeles Spanish news media, and this is a constant theme: Mexican day laborers throwing up their hands and returning across the border to Mexico... may as well be with their families, as long as there's no work in the US.) So in the current situation, I have no problem with generous unemployment benefits, and with stimulus programs like Obama's that try to create work and jobs. For any Governor to turn down this money is more than outrageous; it's cruelty. You're literally talking about children sleeping in the family car. This is not the time to be scoring political cheap shots.
The credit card default crisis is next.
Unemployment is not a handout, not an incentive to become unemployed, not an incentive to stay unemployed.
Not a handout: Your employer paid the premiums all the time you were working. It's part of your compensation. You earned it. It's your (limited) cushion against economic disaster.
Not an incentive to leave a job: You get the benefit if you're out of work through no fault of your own. That means that you weren't fired for cause. Usually, it means your job was abolished. Rarely, it means you quit with a good job-related reason that you had to get out.
Not an incentive to avoid a job: You get the benefit if you are actively looking for work. If you can't prove you've been hunting, the benefit disappears. Even if you can prove you've been hunting, you get way less than you earned on your last job, which is an added reason to keep looking for your next one.
People who claim unemployment are asking for what they earned and paid for. Just like people who ask their car insurance to pay after an accident and their health insurance to pay after surgery.
Unemployment is another piece of our New Deal heritage, ours by right, unless we forfeit it by failing to understand and defend our own.
OT Coates:
First Lady's Official Portrait. Look who's in the background....deliberate or accidental? There's a discussion over at JJP as to that question..LOL
I'm rather late to the party, but I just want to correct one error on TNC's part - employees do NOT pay anything for unemployment insurance. The cost is borne entirely by the employer. It is not deducted by the employer from pay, and is actually not very expensive, either. It is actually a minor cost, when compared to such things as FICA and health insurance.
Otherwise, on point, sir.
My 20 year-old son has been unemployed since September, a week before his college classes resumed. He was tutoring for the government-run program known as Gear Up. Apparently the government does not believe in unemployment insurance, either, as these college kids like my son did not get an opportunity to pay into it.
The layoffs came several weeks after the warning, and the supervisor, who was never on s ite because he had another job as a teacher, randomly fabricated and implicated this one and that one,in order to justify who was layed off and who was retained. My son has a B+ average in his classes, and is one of those quiet kids who everybody likes because he gets along and doesn't argue with anyone.
Now he owes tax money, had to borrow for tuition and books because he had decided to forego FAFSA in lieu of working, and has even applied at McDonald's, but cannot get a call back.
My 18 year-old was fired from a department store a week before Christmas. Nice.
For these yahoos who prefer human suffering to government intervention no words seem to suffice which may reach their ignorant ears. One can only
pray these jobs return soon. LA is up to 10.5%, and 1 out of every 5 adults is receiving some sort of assistance.
In the words of the late Major Lance, "...Um Um Um Um Um Um..."
Re: I think people are laboring under the impression that this is a hand-out to people who don't work.
Most people know better, because most people have either been on unemployment or know someone who has. Getting laid off is very common in today's job market; there's no stigma to it at all. In fact, I've never run into anyone who thought unemployment was "welfare" or was a bad idea in general (except some charcaters on blogs who hail from the fever swamps of the Right and probably think indoor plumbing is a bad idea too).
Re: Isn't Texas in relatively good shape because of the high price of oil last year?
That may part of it, but Texas also avoided the housing boom/bust. Bad memories of the late 80s/early 90s (when Texas had a severe but localized housing collapse that left it crippled for years) kept a lid on things there.
Re: Um, not to seem unsympathetic here, but he's 59. Why doesn't he have any money in the bank?
The story gives a possible hint: he was for a while unemployed a couple years ago. If he did have an "emergency fund" saved up, it was probably used then, and not enough time to recoup.
Re: Not an incentive to avoid a job
Also, the amount you receive, even at maximum, is so meager (sub-poverty level) that almost any full-time job will pay better. In 2002 I took a job telemarketing in preference to unemployment.
Re: employees do NOT pay anything for unemployment insurance. The cost is borne entirely by the employer.
This is literally true, but in the larger picture it is not really true. Any money an employer pays for labor costs (including health premiums, the employers' share of FICA, unemployment insurance and workman's comp premiums) is ultimately coming out of employee compensation even if it is not itemized as such on the pay stubs.