Go to Original
Job Losses Bolster Calls for Extension of Benefits
By Erik Eckholm
The New York Times
Wednesday 09 April 2008
Job losses in the national economy combined with a surge in new claims for
unemployment - pushed for months by Democratic leaders and labor groups
- to extend unemployment benefits beyond their usual limit of 26 weeks.
Bolstering the case for an extension, its advocates say, are indications that
laid-off workers are having an especially tough time finding new jobs, even
compared with past recessions.
Over the last year, more unemployed workers have exhausted their benefits before
finding new jobs than in the years preceding the recessions of 1990 and 2001,
according to a new analysis by a private research group, the National Employment
Law Project, which will present its findings to Congress on Thursday.
There were 407,000 new applicants in the week that ended March 29, an increase
of 38,000 over the previous week, according to federal data. Nearly three million
workers were collecting state unemployment insurance as of March 22. But from
March 2007 to March 2008, 2.7 million workers saw their benefits, averaging
$290 a month, run out, putting intense financial pressure on families and worsening
other problems like mortgage defaults.
Extending benefits can reduce personal hardships and also, economists say,
provide a quick and sure boost to the economy since recipients nearly always
spend the money to meet immediate needs. In 2002 - after the recession
had ended, it was later determined - Congress passed an extension of 13
weeks, and more in states with particularly high and rising unemployment. In
1990, what started as an addition of 13 weeks was later expanded to 26 weeks,
with some states authorized to pay benefits for an extra 33 weeks.
Most of those laid off over the last 12 months eventually found work, but about
821,000 workers exhausted state unemployment insurance benefits and remain unemployed
today, according to a new calculation by the Employment Law Project, based in
Oakland, Calif., using a method developed by the Labor Department.
The call for extending benefits, which is normally done during recessions,
has taken on sharp political tones at a time when the White House has avoided
declaring an economic downturn.
Democrats in Congress had wanted to include an extension in the stimulus plan
passed in February, but the White House opposed it. The main proposals would
allow payments for an additional 13 weeks in most states, and 26 weeks in states
with especially high unemployment, by drawing down the federal unemployment
trust fund, which holds more than $35 billion.
On Monday, President Bush again rejected the idea, urging Congress to "give
the pro-growth package that was passed overwhelmingly a chance to work."
Both Democratic presidential candidates have renewed their calls for a benefits
extension as part of a "second stimulus." Senator John McCain, the
presumptive Republican nominee, has not supported the idea.
Congressional Democrats are stepping up their efforts and hope that more Republicans,
especially from states with high unemployment, will join them.
In a report issued Tuesday, the House Ways and Means Committee said that "nearly
1.3 million workers have been unemployed for more than six months" and
that "Congress should quickly extend unemployment benefits."
According to a report by the Congressional Budget Office, extended benefits
would cost $1 billion to $2 billion per month, and would be a quick way to increase
spending and aid the economy.
Advocates of a benefits extension note that long-term joblessness is a bigger
problem now than it was at the start of past recessions. The average duration
of unemployment for laid-off workers was 16.2 weeks in March 2008, compared
with 12.6 weeks in March 2001 and 11.9 weeks in July 1990, according to federal
data.
-------
Jump to today's Truthout Issues:
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.
Print This Story
E-mail This Story