Missouri alone in refusing federal jobless benefits
The Missouri Legislature is alone among states in rejecting federal money for the unemployed, shunning an estimated $105 million as a way to protest government overspending.
The Missouri Senate adjourned Thursday without taking action on legislation to extend unemployment benefits, cutting off checks for nearly 10,000 jobless Missourians and threatening benefits for many more in the months ahead.
Some conservatives argue that cutting off benefits will prod the unemployed back to work more quickly, boosting the economy. But critics argue that the refusal could cost the state's economy millions. The move drew more emotional reactions from unemployed St. Louisans such as Ruth Ann Edwards, who worries about paying her mortgage.
"I walk around constantly with my heart in my mouth, wondering what would happen if I can't make my payments. What if I lose my house?" asked Edwards, of south St. Louis.
In Washington, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., criticized the Legislature, noting that the money in question already has been allocated.
"This isn't going to make a dent in the deficit," she said, "and it's going to devastate hundreds of families who are trying to put food on the table."
The legislation in question would extend Missouri's unemployment benefits to 99 weeks, with the federal government bearing the costs.
But the bill is blocked as a result of a filibuster by four Republican senators who say they are trying to send a message about out-of-control Washington spending. Missouri state Sen. Jim Lembke, R-Lemay, a leader in the effort, remarked this week, "I'm trying to shame the federal government into doing the right thing."
Advocates for the jobless hope the issue will be resolved as soon as next week, when the Legislature reconvenes. But the impact already is being felt by the thousands of people not getting checks averaging $260 a week, said Amy Blouin, executive director of the Missouri Budget Project, an advocacy group that lobbies in behalf of jobless Missourians.
"This is not good for 10,000 Missourians impacted, and it is not good for the economy," she said.
Earlier this week, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder made his state the first to lower the number of weeks that unemployed workers can get state benefits. Snyder signed legislation reducing state benefits to 20 weeks from 26 weeks, a bill that will save his state money. That provision was part of legislation that will extend federal jobless benefits in Michigan to 99 weeks.
The National Council of State Legislatures and other organizations tuned to legislative politics said no state other than Missouri has turned down the jobless benefits money. So far, 13 states, including California and New York, have passed legislation enabling receipt of the extended benefits.
The impasse in Jefferson City resembled a furor in Washington last year when a Republican-led filibuster in Congress delayed extended benefits for the unemployed. The dispute in Congress generated a debate both about spending and the economic impacts of the benefits.
James Sherk, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, asserted Thursday that prolonged unemployment benefits can backfire if they encourage unemployed people to search for manufacturing jobs that no longer exist rather than accepting lower-paying jobs.
"There's a natural humanitarian response to say we want to help. But if you provide too much, it becomes counterproductive," he said.
Liberal advocacy groups decried the Missouri action.
"It strikes me as downright mean and pernicious," said Mike Evangelist, a spokesman for the New York-based National Employment Law Project, which tracks state unemployment issues.
Ross Eisenbrey, vice president of the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, pointed to economic studies showing that each dollar of federal unemployment benefits yields $1.60 to $2 for state economies.
"I think any normal citizen can understand that the state would be better off if there were $105 million coming into Missouri," he said. "People getting it go to stores and spend it, allowing stores to hire people. To refuse this money is crazy."
In south St. Louis County, several people emerging from the Deer Creek Career Center were troubled by the inaction in Jefferson City.
Bill Kalesh, of south St. Louis, has been out of work for most of the last two years after his layoff from an industrial refrigerator manufacturer. He said he could feel the loss of extended benefits as early as this weekend. He said he was running out of savings, as well as patience for legislators like Lembke.
"I think we should put his ass on the unemployment line," Kalesh said. "If he understood what this is like, he sure as hell wouldn't try to stop the extensions."
For unemployed mental health care worker Pam Gween, the bid by Lembke and three other state senators to halt benefits represented yet another slap in the face.
"What are they thinking?" asked Gween, of Kirkwood. "Don't they understand it's bad enough that (job search) websites are already saying the unemployed need not apply for jobs? They see us as losers. And now this."
David Greenwalt, managing director of the Go! Network, a support group for laid-off executives that meets weekly in downtown St. Louis, said the blocked legislation adds an additional level of hardship to an already anxious population.
"These are people actively searching for work," said Greenwalt. "This won't make them work any harder to find a new position."
source
The Missouri Senate adjourned Thursday without taking action on legislation to extend unemployment benefits, cutting off checks for nearly 10,000 jobless Missourians and threatening benefits for many more in the months ahead.
Some conservatives argue that cutting off benefits will prod the unemployed back to work more quickly, boosting the economy. But critics argue that the refusal could cost the state's economy millions. The move drew more emotional reactions from unemployed St. Louisans such as Ruth Ann Edwards, who worries about paying her mortgage.
"I walk around constantly with my heart in my mouth, wondering what would happen if I can't make my payments. What if I lose my house?" asked Edwards, of south St. Louis.
In Washington, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., criticized the Legislature, noting that the money in question already has been allocated.
"This isn't going to make a dent in the deficit," she said, "and it's going to devastate hundreds of families who are trying to put food on the table."
The legislation in question would extend Missouri's unemployment benefits to 99 weeks, with the federal government bearing the costs.
But the bill is blocked as a result of a filibuster by four Republican senators who say they are trying to send a message about out-of-control Washington spending. Missouri state Sen. Jim Lembke, R-Lemay, a leader in the effort, remarked this week, "I'm trying to shame the federal government into doing the right thing."
Advocates for the jobless hope the issue will be resolved as soon as next week, when the Legislature reconvenes. But the impact already is being felt by the thousands of people not getting checks averaging $260 a week, said Amy Blouin, executive director of the Missouri Budget Project, an advocacy group that lobbies in behalf of jobless Missourians.
"This is not good for 10,000 Missourians impacted, and it is not good for the economy," she said.
Earlier this week, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder made his state the first to lower the number of weeks that unemployed workers can get state benefits. Snyder signed legislation reducing state benefits to 20 weeks from 26 weeks, a bill that will save his state money. That provision was part of legislation that will extend federal jobless benefits in Michigan to 99 weeks.
The National Council of State Legislatures and other organizations tuned to legislative politics said no state other than Missouri has turned down the jobless benefits money. So far, 13 states, including California and New York, have passed legislation enabling receipt of the extended benefits.
The impasse in Jefferson City resembled a furor in Washington last year when a Republican-led filibuster in Congress delayed extended benefits for the unemployed. The dispute in Congress generated a debate both about spending and the economic impacts of the benefits.
James Sherk, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, asserted Thursday that prolonged unemployment benefits can backfire if they encourage unemployed people to search for manufacturing jobs that no longer exist rather than accepting lower-paying jobs.
"There's a natural humanitarian response to say we want to help. But if you provide too much, it becomes counterproductive," he said.
Liberal advocacy groups decried the Missouri action.
"It strikes me as downright mean and pernicious," said Mike Evangelist, a spokesman for the New York-based National Employment Law Project, which tracks state unemployment issues.
Ross Eisenbrey, vice president of the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, pointed to economic studies showing that each dollar of federal unemployment benefits yields $1.60 to $2 for state economies.
"I think any normal citizen can understand that the state would be better off if there were $105 million coming into Missouri," he said. "People getting it go to stores and spend it, allowing stores to hire people. To refuse this money is crazy."
In south St. Louis County, several people emerging from the Deer Creek Career Center were troubled by the inaction in Jefferson City.
Bill Kalesh, of south St. Louis, has been out of work for most of the last two years after his layoff from an industrial refrigerator manufacturer. He said he could feel the loss of extended benefits as early as this weekend. He said he was running out of savings, as well as patience for legislators like Lembke.
"I think we should put his ass on the unemployment line," Kalesh said. "If he understood what this is like, he sure as hell wouldn't try to stop the extensions."
For unemployed mental health care worker Pam Gween, the bid by Lembke and three other state senators to halt benefits represented yet another slap in the face.
"What are they thinking?" asked Gween, of Kirkwood. "Don't they understand it's bad enough that (job search) websites are already saying the unemployed need not apply for jobs? They see us as losers. And now this."
David Greenwalt, managing director of the Go! Network, a support group for laid-off executives that meets weekly in downtown St. Louis, said the blocked legislation adds an additional level of hardship to an already anxious population.
"These are people actively searching for work," said Greenwalt. "This won't make them work any harder to find a new position."
source