OFFLINE

Arizona Pits Jobless Benefits Against State Spending
by Mark Brodie
NPR

There are millions of Americans still out of work and many of them are collecting unemployment benefits. New numbers show the economy only created 18,000 jobs nationwide in June and the national unemployment rate ticked up again.

Arizona has chosen not to accept federally subsidized extended benefits, and 20,000 people there have been cut off since mid-June. Many others are about to lose their unemployment benefits.

Since 2009, Lynn Broshears has been unemployed and looking for work. Now, the 67-year-old is bumping up against the 79-week unemployment limit.

Broshears has been a school bus driver, a school bus attendant and a receptionist. She's sent out a couple hundred resumes since losing her job, but hasn't gotten many responses. She currently collects about $150 a week in unemployment benefits and is worried about losing that.

"I will not be able to buy my medications. I will not be able to pay the car insurance or the household insurance," Broshears says, adding that she has no idea what is going to happen.

Republican State Rep. Justin Olson says the debate over extending unemployment benefits was an example of the excesses of Washington.

"My heart goes out to these individuals that have found themselves in difficult circumstances because of this recession," he says. "But the reality is after a year and a half, one has to look at their individual circumstances, and evaluate what they're going to do in order to live within their means."

Some Republicans argue extending unemployment benefits discourages people from looking for work. The maximum amount unemployed Arizonans can get is $240 a week, an amount state Senate Democratic Leader David Schapira calls a pittance.

"We have a pretty significant incentive, even for those who are receiving benefits, to go out and look for work, because we don't pay very much for unemployment in Arizona," he says.

Schapira predicts cutting off benefit checks in Arizona will extend the recession a bit longer here.

Dennis Hoffman, a professor of economics at Arizona State University, says unemployment benefits are subsistence checks that recipients use to buy food, gas and other necessities.

"I think it's really quite clear that a few dollars in their pockets would really help individuals, and it might actually facilitate, let's say, their job search, and it might shorten the amount of time they spend on the unemployment rolls," he says.

And, Hoffman says, these checks actually stimulate the economy. The governor's office asked him to look at the impact of continuing unemployment benefits and he determined it would bring nearly $200 million of direct and indirect spending to the state.

But, Republicans like State Rep. Olson say reducing government spending on things like unemployment benefits will strengthen the state's economy.

"This is the one issue where as a state Legislature we had input on spending at the federal level," he says. "And we sent that message to Washington, D.C., that we have to put a stop to the spending."

But spending on unemployment is a lifeline for people out of work. Broshears says legislators are playing politics with her life.

"They think we're a bunch of sluff-offs," she says. "We're not. We have to look for a job. It's basically looking for a job is a full-time job itself.

Broshears says she hopes to find a job before her checks stop coming, but acknowledges it doesn't look very promising. She has a lot of competition; there are more than 109,000 Arizonans currently collecting unemployment benefits.

OFFLINE

can't extend unemployment benefits to everyone forever.

OFFLINE

No, but if you cut it before there any sufficient number of jobs to make finding some level of employment possible you'll end up with tens of millions of new homeless who had always been willing to work but, despite their efforts had been unable to land a job.

OFFLINE

well, this is a classic case of what we would like to do, and what we can practically do. if practical, i don't think anyone would mind permanent unemployment benefits, but it's just not a reality, and would have major negative unintended consequences, such as the permanently unemployed. yes, the job market sucks, but how long can we carry on with this? unemployment was never meant to be a long-term thing. as bad as the economy is, i think 99 weeks (almost two years) is extremely generous. and what if this stagnant economy goes on another few years? are we going to have 300 weeks of unemployment? in a way, this is a microcosm of the disagreements between the left and the right. the left would like to tend to everyone who is in need, while the right understands this isn't feasible.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:

"My heart goes out to these individuals that have found themselves in difficult circumstances because of this recession," he says. "But the reality is after a year and a half, one has to look at their individual circumstances, and evaluate what they're going to do in order to live within their means."

Translation: "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"..... And didn't Orrin Hatch say the other day that the rich had already done enough to help the economy and "The poor need jobs! And they also need to share some of the responsibility.".

So, in trickle-down economics if you leave the rich people have their money and don't tax them as much, they'll invest it and create more jobs, but if there's not enough jobs for poor, then it's their own responsibility?  

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

So, in trickle-down economics if you leave the rich people have their money and don't tax them as much, they'll invest it and create more jobs, but if there's not enough jobs for poor, then it's their own responsibility?  

miles, you provocative s.o.b. don't you think that companies WANT to expand and bring in more revenues? so why aren't they? we've had almost 3 years of anti-business policies. ask them and they will tell you that all the new regulations, and red tape, not to mention the uncertainty brought about by obamacare, has then unsure as to how much it will cost them to do business. this isn't just about taxes.

OFFLINE

My favorite part from that article was when Olson said these people, who had been surviving on 150-240 a week and were loosing their benefits needed to "live within their means," ie nothing.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:


miles, you provocative s.o.b.  

Yeah, but you love me really, I keep ye on your toes  :-P

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Kieran Colfer:

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:


miles, you provocative s.o.b.  

Yeah, but you love me really, I keep ye on your toes  :-P

you are the smartarse irish provocateur-in-chief.