
In just a few days, as the holidays come to a close, 1.3 million Americans will lose their emergency unemployment benefits.
All of them belong to the long-term unemployedâworkers who were pushed into joblessness by the recession and its aftermathâand most of them are actively looking for work; otherwise, we wouldnât count them in official unemployment statistics. But they face a sluggish, demand-starved economy whose growth has been marred by large spending cuts and senseless budget brinksmanship.
Itâs a horrible position to be in. âShort of death or a debilitating terminal disease, long-term unemployment is about the worst thing that can happen to you in the modern world,â wrote Megan McArdle earlier this year, âIt cuts you off from the mass of your peers and puts stress on your family, making it likely that further awful things, like divorce or suicide, will be in your near future.â And remember, none of this is deserved. These Americans are victims of our lackluster response to a catastrophic economic crisis. There, but for the grace of God, could any of us be in the same situation.
Which is to say that, in the absence of anything to improve short-term prospects and strengthen the labor market, the least we can do is extend these benefits and provide a measure of security for hard-hit families and individuals.
Democrats in Congress have proposed as much. Last week, in a news conference, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that an extension was at the top of his agenda for the new year. âItâs a good bill, and it deserves a vote,â he said. And, on Monday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told reporters that she supports an extension, with or without budget offsets. âWorkers pay into a system as they are working,â she said. âWe have always considered this an emergency that springs from a downturn in the economy and that, therefore, there does not need to be an offset to it."
Sheâs right. The whole point of unemployment insurance is that itâs independent of normal budgetary concerns, sinceâin the long-runâitâs cheaper to give benefits than allow the jobless to fall into destitution, to say nothing of the boost it gives to the economy by putting cash in the hands of people who need it most.
Unfortunately, the prospects for new benefits are slim, sinceâfor this Christmas seasonâthe Republican Party has embraced the spirit of Scrooge.
âWhen you allow people to be on unemployment insurance for 99 weeks, youâre causing them to become part of this perpetual unemployed group in our economy,â said Kentucky Senator Rand Paul earlier this month, an argument that, if you take their benefits away, the unemployed would get back to work. He later said that borrowing for unemployment benefits is âweakening us as a country.â
Few other Republicans have been as vocal about their opposition to extending unemployment insurance, but overall, GOP lawmakers are unwilling to provide more benefits. âI donât see much appetite on our side for continuing this extension of benefits,â said Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma. âI just donât.â
On the merits, itâs a baffling position to take. Not only is long-term unemployment the highest its ever been, but itâs hugely destructive to the individual lives and communities.
Even after you get a job, the harm from long-term unemployment can last for years. Indeed, the idea that this is something people enjoyâthat anyone wants to stay idleâis ludicrous. âIf you look at the long-term unemployed, a good chunk of them have children. A good chunk are married. A good chunk are college-educated or have had some college and in their prime earning years,â writes Michael Strain of the conservative American Enterprise Institute, âIt strikes me as implausible that this person is engaged in a half-hearted job search.â People want to work, the problem is thatâwith three seekers for every positionâthere arenât enough jobs to go around.
But there is an explanation for the GOP refusal to act on unemployment insurance. This year, Republicans have pushed for tens of billions of dollars in cuts to food stamps, as well as other programs for the disadvantaged. Itâs part of a broad disdain for those on the bottomââthe takers,â in Paul Ryanâs wordsâand a deep suspicion that the poor are taking advantage of taxpayers. Itâs how you get rhetoric like this, from Senator James Inhofe of OklahomaââPeople who are perfectly capable of working are buying things like beerââdespite the fact that these families overwhelmingly spend their assistance on food, housing, and other necessities.
It took visits from the ghosts of Christmas for Scrooge to embrace generosity. What will it take for the Republican Party? A winter of desperation and mass poverty? I hope not, but I wouldnât hold my breath. The same inequality that removes the poor from our political conversations also helps shields our lawmakers from the effects of their actions.
The sad fact, in other words, is that Republicans can vote against unemployment insuranceâand food stamps, and welfare, and health coverageâassured in the knowledge that they wonât see the results.