NY Times Laments How 'One Little Word' Is Depriving Arizona Jobless of Federal Benefits
New York Times economics reporter Catherine Rampell’s front-page story Saturday on Arizona imposing limits on federal unemployment benefits it provides, “For Want of a Word, Arizona’s Jobless Lose Checks,” is the latest Times story to fiercely defend unimpeded spending on unemployment benefits.
Previously this year, Times reporters had questioned “deepest and most far-reaching” cuts in unemployment benefits by Michigan and Florida, although the supposedly drastic cuts reduced total (state plus federal) unemployment benefits to the jobless by a mere six weeks out of up to 99.
Rampell found a sympathetic case whom she sketched as being in a tragic, “for want of a nail” situation, and seemed to think the decision a no-brainer for Arizona because, after all, the federal government was paying for it:
One word, just one little word.
That’s all that Frank Ballesteros, a 62-year-old desperate for work, needs to stay afloat. The word is not “hope” or “God” or “patience.” It is, improbably, “three.”
Arizona’s legislature has resisted making a small word change, from “two” to “three,” in its statutes. Only if it does will Mr. Ballesteros continue to receive jobless benefits through November, allowing him to pay his mortgage and medical bills.
Otherwise, his checks stop next week.
“It is almost 100 degrees out there, and I am walking door to door handing out résumés,” said Mr. Ballesteros, who worked for 21 years at a nonprofit group in Tucson before getting laid off when funding dried up. “Now Arizona decided to kill the benefits extension from the federal government because some legislator decided we’re just sitting around on our butts waiting for a check.”
That last extension of unemployment benefits -- typically received in weeks 80 through 99 of unemployment -- is paid for entirely with federal money and does not affect state budgets. But because of ideological opposition and other legislative priorities, Arizona and a handful of other states, like Wisconsin and Alaska, have not made the one-word change necessary to keep the program going.
Right now about 640,000 jobless Americans are receiving this last tier of benefits, according to the National Employment Law Project. The money, appropriated in the 2009 federal stimulus package, was initially intended for states with jobless rates higher than they were two years earlier. Since the recovery has been much slower than predicted, though, Congress decided last December to allow states to continue receiving the money if their unemployment rates were higher than they were three years earlier. States simply needed to change “two” to “three” in the relevant state law.
Rampell found “some economists” sympathetic to state spending, but failed to identify them by ideology or economic philosophy.
Some economists say that cutting off the long-term unemployed from extended federal assistance could backfire by putting further strain on state economies instead. Indeed, most states were quick to make the one-word change, counting on the federal money not only to support ailing families but also to serve as a strong stimulus (jobless benefits are normally spent more quickly than, say, tax refunds). Nearly every state -- Arizona included -- had opted into the extended benefits program when it was introduced.
....
When the unemployed stop receiving federal money they will cut back on spending, which means less income for local businesses. Many of them may also start relying more heavily on state services like Medicaid and homeless shelters, which are already strained for cash.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Good. Let the riots begin.
Submitted by johnsonl on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:05am.
The unemployed, made so by the Obamao administration, have been sitting around getting their unemployment benefits extended time and time again. Those benefits are running out. I would strongly encourage those folks to use the last of their benefits to abandon their homes, buy a tent and pitch it in Lafayette Park, right across from the White House and stay there until Obamao stops destroying our economy with his socialistic policies. People want paychecks, not food stamps.Hungry, broke, homeless, rioting citizens don't have much to fear or lose. What's the worst that will happen? They'll end up in jail, with a bed, food and medical care?
What is the worst that couild happen??
Submitted by NL207 on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:36am.
Try Obama declaring martial law in response to such mob actions. Jail will be the least that will happen to these 'campers' in that event. Bodily harm or death become a distinct likelihood.
Hhmm, who dried up the funding?
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:12am.
“It is almost 100 degrees out there, and I am walking door to door handing out résumés,” said Mr. Ballesteros, who worked for 21 years at a nonprofit group in Tucson before getting laid off when funding dried up.
Wasn't Acorn was it? You should had thought of that before blindly electing morons telling you how great it was going to be.
No answers here
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:13am.
So Frank Ballesteros will only survive if he gets checks from July to November. What will he survive on after November? Do you mean to tell me that those 19 weeks of checks will last him the rest of his life? Is he getting a verdict from an Obama Death Panel in November?
To state the obvious, a job
Submitted by Chris Norman on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:15am.
To state the obvious, a job is the best unemployment assistance. That said, I note that the man in the story is 62 years old. The people who are having the hardest time finding employment in this almost non-existent hiring market, are people over 50. Finding a new job at age 62 is almost impossible. There is a myth that employers like older workers, finding them more "stable" and "dependable". My experience, in looking for a job a couple of years ago, convinced me that it was just that - a myth.
A job is a job no matter what
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:26pm.
A job is a job no matter what it pays or what it is. He can find a job, possibly not the one he wants. Perhaps he may need to move or something but a job is a job. I was in Tucson recently and saw lots of help wanted signs around. Heck mow lawns or something.
Two questions
Submitted by Boil It Down on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:30am.
What "nonprofit" organization did Mr. Ballesteros work for? I ask this because I'm curious if it was one of the parasitic groups that have been bleeding the taxpayers.
How many jobs did he not pursue or turn down? Anecdotal stories like this from liberals often avoid telling us the fact that the person didn't really want to work if they could stay on the dole. Some people just suffer from a static inertia that they don't try to overcome when the option is there to stay unemployed. Of course the government enables and nurtures this behavior.
I've been out of work a lot in the past few years and have never taken a dime of government "help". -bidn-
AZ has a 9.1% unemployment rate.
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:34am.
In my community the rate is 9.7%... Those figures are pretty bad. Nevertheless we, as a nation, cannot afford to keep extending unemployment benefits as a substitue for real economic reform that will put people to work.
On another note: The booze, cigarette, and tattoo businesses are thriving.
- Grump :o)
62 and laid off?
Submitted by CO2Maker on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:28am.
A. He's eligible for Social Security.
B. Who was his employer? Oh, yes, a "non-profit in Tucson." As Boudin asks, Acorn? Also, how much were they paying him? No retirement account or benefit? Hmmm. I think it's time for Severance Ballesteros to initiate a class-action against the Tucson Firer who canned him.
As George Will says
Submitted by KornKing on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:47am.
If you pay people to not work......
"When the unemployed stop
Submitted by twiggygirl71 on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 11:03am.
"When the unemployed stop receiving federal money they will cut back on spending..."
You gotta love how Rampell admits here that people spend less when they have less to spend. Uh, news flash, Ms. Rampell: this is precisely why (among other reasons, admittedly) many Republicans don't favor tax hikes in this crappy economy: because it means less money in people's pockets, which means less spending! This is not rocket science. Why do so many Democrats love to paint Republicans as evil for wanting to keep tax rates where they are to encourage spending? They seem to understand the basic principle, but prefer to apply it only to their policies. I don't get it.
no real skills apparently
Submitted by wizardjr on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 11:35am.
I worked right up to age 65. I got laid of in round three at the company I was contracted to (contractors mostly go first, it's easier). Now at 66 I could get work within a week or so. The reason - I've got employable skills (programmer analyst). This guy sounds like the typical lazy drone with skills I can hire for minimum wage. I spent years and years of my own time to keep my skills relevant and high tech. I wager this person has never spent more than five minutes since high school updating/upgrading his skills.
Reap what you sow.
the gravy train has left the station
Submitted by Rackie on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 12:36pm.
Choices really do have consequences, though not always at first.
And sometimes you get smacked down hard through no fault of your own.