By Charlotte Hays
Friday, January 17, 2014
A recent report on Market Watch—hardly a right-wing
hangout—should be required reading for every Democrat who believes that
extending “temporary” unemployment benefits is always the humane thing to do.
An experiment in North Carolina indicates that—as is all
too often the case—Democrats actually may be hurting the very people they claim
to be helping in their quest, temporarily halted, to extend unemployment
benefits.
North Carolina, it seems, pressed for money and under the
cruel sway of a Republican governor, resorted to drastic measures: slashing
unemployment benefits and, as if that wasn’t draconian enough, cutting the
number of weeks the unemployed could receive even these meager benefits.
“Within several months, the unemployment rate fell a few
ticks and by November it fell to a five-year low,” Market Watch reported. The
jobless rates declined similarly, if less spectacularly, in Georgia and South
Carolina, where benefits were also reduced in 2012.
Market Watch was cautious not to conclude that the news
from North Carolina is a vindication of critics of extending unemployment
benefits. It noted that several states that did not cut benefits had also shown
a decline in joblessness.
Nevertheless the North Carolina experience deserves a
look. What happened in North Carolina is even more relevant because the state
was particularly hard hit during the Great Recession. In dire straits, North
Carolina availed itself of federal loans to help pay for unemployment benefits,
which lasted 26 weeks.
When North Carolina ended up seriously in hock to the
feds, Republican Governor Pat McCrory, who took office in 2013, faced a choice:
raise taxes, a course of action McCrory maintained would harm businesses
(which, after all, create jobs) or cut unemployment benefits. The brave
governor cut benefits.
The maximum weekly benefit was cut from the previous high
of $535 to $350, a not insignificant reduction. The time people could collect
benefits was cut from 26 weeks to only 12 or 20. But that was not the end of
the cruelty.
McCrory’s cuts imposed a further hardship on the
unemployed: unemployed North Carolinians became ineligible for certain cash
payments offered by the federal government, which requires states to pay a certain
level of benefits to qualify for these payments. About 70,000 North Carolinians
lost out on these payments.
If the congressional Democrats (and a few wayward
Republicans!) who supported extending the benefits were right, McCrory’s cuts
should have ushered in a humanitarian crisis that made the Armageddon that
ensued from the sequester mild. Oh, wait…
Market Watch’s Jeffrey Bartash wrote:
North Carolina’s jobless rate rose a notch to 8.9% in July and then began a steady descent: 8.7% in August, 8.3% in September, 8.0% in October and a preliminary 7.4% in November, according to U.S. Labor Department figures.That’s the lowest rate since late 2008, though monthly numbers are prone to sharp revisions.
This data doesn’t tell us what happened to everybody who
is no longer classified as unemployed.
Market Watch speculated that some may have retired, ended
up on welfare, or moved in with family. In other words, some of them may have
gotten out of the work force, as many former workers across the nation have
done, thus helping bring down the still dangerously high national employment
rate.
Still, while there may have been people who didn’t get
jobs, it is undeniable that North Carolina's unemployment rate declined. It is
unarguable that more people were working than before the cuts, thus reducing
the pool of human suffering.
The North Carolina success story should have been a
rallying cry for Republicans when extending the benefits was debated on Capitol
Hill.
It is unfortunate that some chose instead to focus on how
to “pay for” extending the benefits, as if extending these benefits is
inherently good, if only you can find a way to afford them.
They should instead have been willing to talk about the
morality and utility of long-term unemployment benefits. As it happens, this is
something about which I know a thing or two.
In the 1990s, living in New York and tossed by a
publisher who didn’t like my column (talk about cruel!), I found myself
receiving unemployment insurance benefits. I have to confess that they offered
me peace of mind, especially at first, when life was raw.
I’ve written before about my experience with unemployment
benefits. I should have headlined my saga “How I Lost My Benefits but Found a
Job.”
Yes, ladies and gentleman, this rock-rib right winger,
advocate of pluck and grit and elbow grease had been dawdling in her job
search. I didn’t really realize I was lackadaisical, though in retrospect I
know that some of my ideas for employment were fantastical. I won’t tell you
which intellectual journal I tried to sell on the idea of my doing a gossip
column for them!
But then the benefits were about to expire and the wolf
is at the door: Mr. Wolf makes you lose your pickiness and take any job you can
get. For me, it was a job I didn't really want but which turned out to be a
long-term, life blessing. I am so glad I took it, but I might have spurned the
offer if the benefits hadn’t stopped.
I hope that the next time unemployment benefits come up
in Washington—and believe me, the issue will come up again—the Republicans will
remember North Carolina and make an argument that is both moral and
utilitarian. We shouldn’t be trying to “pay for” a “benefit” that keeps people
on the dole.
No comments:
Post a Comment