Extend jobless benefits? It's counterproductive
With only labor force shrinkage seeming to reduce stubbornly high joblessness, this is no time to extend unemployment benefits that discourage seeking work. And with midterm elections looming, this is no time for the Republican-controlled House to be suckered into the Democrat-controlled Senate's political game by voting for such an economically unsound measure.
Senate Democrats who were joined by six Republicans in passing a five-month extension of long-term unemployment benefits hope that vote will press the House to follow suit. But House Republicans must realize that extending unemployment benefits is counterproductive for the jobless and the economy.
Extensions “in the past five years have kept at least 600,000 people out of the labor force, because people tend to ride a gravy train,” writes Aloysius Hogan of the Competitive Enterprise Institute in USA Today, citing Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and National Bureau of Economic Research analyses.
He also notes there's no funding budgeted for another extension, which would cost about $2 billion a month — and mainly go to Democrat-dominated, heavily unionized, high-unemployment states.
GOP strategists tell The Washington Times that House Republicans won't be “bullied” into extending unemployment benefits again and aren't feeling pressured politically to do so, despite the Democrats' claims. Standing firm, as they must, is the right thing for GOP House members to do — both economically and politically.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The visa flap: A prevailing stench
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- The student-loan balloon
- Kittanning Council conundrum: Why disband authority?
- Voter ID: A case reaffirmed
- Twist in White Oak fines
- The truth behind H-1B
- Mon-Yough Laurels & Lances
- Open contract negotiations: Let the sunshine in
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances