• Home
  • :
  • :
  • Member Center
  • :
  • Make This Your Home Page




Business

Search Legal Notices

GOP won’t consider an extension of jobless benefits

01:00 AM EDT on Wednesday, June 18, 2008

By John E. Mulligan

Journal Washington Bureau

“Millions of Americans go out pounding the pavement each and every day, looking for work to support themselves and their families,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse said in a speech on the Senate floor as Republicans declined to take up a measure that would add an extra 13 weeks to the jobless benefits program. He said the measure “could help more than 3 million Americans pay the mortgage or the rent or feed their families as they continue to navigate a perilous job market.” Whitehouse later appeared at a news conference on the topic.

Sen. Jack Reed was also among the Democrats who spoke for extended benefits and criticized the GOP for inaction. “Unemployment insurance benefits have a very high return on their investment. Individuals who receive these benefits are going to spend it on basic necessities; they are going to put fuel in their cars and buy food. This money is going to go right back in the economy,” said Reed.

Extended federal jobless pay, financed mostly by taxes on employers, is among the government’s tools for softening the effects of an economic downturn. Federal statisticians have not declared the economy to be in recession but many experts say one may have already begun, or will begin soon. National unemployment has risen to 5.5 percent, the highest rate since 2004. Rhode Island’s unemployment rate rose to 6.1 percent in April, the most recent month surveyed.

The Senate bill, which Republicans said they might take up in different parliamentary circumstances, would allow the unemployed to qualify for the 13-week extension if they live in states where the jobless rate is at 6 percent or higher.

The House, meanwhile, planned to consider extended jobless benefits later this week as part of an emergency spending bill to cover the continuing cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Bush administration has threatened a veto, in part because it seeks a “clean” war-spending bill without such unrelated domestic policy amendments.

jmulligan@belo-dc.com

Advertisement