Alex Rogers summarizes a bipartisan Senate proposal to restore the emergency unemployment benefits that expired in December:
The proposal from senators representing some of the most economically distraught states would be paid for through changes to single-employer pension plans and extending fees on U.S. customs users through 2024. The extension would not be restored for the tiny fraction of millionaires who receive unemployment insurance. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I), who led the negotiations with Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), called it a “bipartisan breakthrough.”
But the reaction from influential House conservatives who had yet to hear of the plan ranged from skeptical to outright opposition, suggesting the bill will struggle to get beyond the Senate.
Danny Vinik explains what the proposal would do:
It means people who have been out of work more than 26 weeks and less than 73 would receive a big check from the government for unemployment benefits they would’ve been collecting over the past 10 weeks.
If you were out of work 70 weeks as of December 28, you’d receive three weeks of unemployment insurance. If you were unemployed 50 weeks as of then, you’d receive 10 weeks of benefits now and continue receiving them until the five month extension expires. Oh, that’s assuming you didn’t make more than a million dollars last year. If you did, then you wouldn’t get anything.
As for the amount, unemployment benefits generally make up half a person’s previous wages by average, although the exact amount varies by state. In 2012, average benefits ranged from $133 in Puerto Rico to $653 in Massachusetts.
Sargent thinks bringing up the subject again benefits the Democrats:
This is really good news, and let’s hope it passes. It probably won’t; it will probably die in the House.
But in raw political terms, that means UI as a key issue is back. Now the Senate will vote on it, and Senate Republicans will be challenged to vote against it. Senate candidates on both sides will be asked by the press to take a position on it. Presuming it passes the Senate, which it should (any Dem defections are unlikely), the House GOP will have to decide whether to kill it — by not allowing a vote on it or by voting it down. House Republicans will now have to confront the issue.
Chad Stone supports extending UI, considering the still-weak job market:
It’s still hard to find a job, especially for the “long-term unemployed” — those who’ve been looking for a job for 27 weeks or more. In the early stages of the recovery, when unemployment insurance spending was at its highest, there were about six or seven unemployed workers for every job opening. That ratio has declined substantially, but it is still closer to the highest level it reached in the 2001 recession and its aftermath than to the more normal levels just before the Great Recession.
Most tellingly, long-term unemployment remains much higher than at any previous time when policymakers allowed emergency unemployment insurance to expire
Noting that there’s no ironclad argument against extending UI, Jennifer Rubin suggests the GOP support it and try to get something in return:
Let me suggest that Republicans have leverage here and should apply it precisely to the issue at hand: jobs. The House has already passed the SKILLS Act, which reforms job-training programs. That trade would signal that Republicans are willing to work with Democrats but insist on meaningful measures that help job readiness. It’s hard for Senate Democrats to say no to job-training reform, especially with UI, a big issue with their depressed base, in play. Alternatively, the House could attach a pro-growth, pro-jobs energy bill.
The Dish 