Sômé States Shorten Unemployment Benefits

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

LINK FOR FULL ARTICLE:
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110522/ap_on_re_us/us_broken_budgets_unemployment_insurance_states
(excerpt ~ see article for full text)

WASHINGTON – Some of the states that have drained their unemployment insurance funds are cutting the number of weeks that a laid-off worker can count on those benefits. Legislators are trying to limit tax increases for businesses to replenish the pool and are hoping the federal government keeps stepping in when the economy slumps.

Michigan, Missouri and Arkansas recently reduced the maximum number of weeks that the jobless can get state unemployment benefits. Florida is on the verge of doing so. Unemployment in those states ranges from 7.8 percent in Arkansas to 11.1 percent in Florida.

The benefit cuts come as legislatures deal with the damage that the recession inflicted on state unemployment insurance programs. The sharp increase in the number of people who lost their jobs drained the reservoir of money dedicated to paying out benefits.

About 30 states borrowed more than $44 billion from the federal government to continue payments to laid-off workers. Many states hastened the insolvency of their funds by keeping balances at historically low levels going into the downturn.

The burden of replenishing the funds and paying off the loans will fall primarily on businesses through higher taxes, but the benefit cuts are an effort to limit the tax increases.

States usually provide up to 26 weeks of benefits to laid-off workers. Michigan and Missouri have cut that to a maximum 20 weeks. Arkansas went to 25.

Florida is considering a more complex change that would link the duration of benefits to the strength of the economy. The cap would range from 23 weeks during periods of double-digit unemployment to as low as 12 weeks during periods of extremely low unemployment. The Florida Legislature approved the changes, but the governor hasn't signed the bill.

Once state benefits are exhausted, laid-off workers often are eligible for 13 weeks to 20 weeks of extended benefits. States and the federal government usually split the cost for that program. During recessions, Congress typically takes the aid a step further, providing several more months of emergency benefits entirely paid for by the federal government.

The actions taken by legislatures apply specifically to state benefits, but also will reduce future federal benefits because the changes affect the formula used to calculate them.[/i]

[Deleted]

All I can say is that I drove quite a few people in my cab that outright told me they had no intention of going back to work until their unemployment ran out. Viewed it as some sort of vacation from working.
*** People in cities could drive cabs, you know. Long hours, dangerous, frustrating--- but you can make $100 a day or more. Much harder than unemployment, though.***

[Deleted]

All I can say is that I drove quite a few people in my cab that outright told me they had no intention of going back to work until their unemployment ran out. Viewed it as some sort of vacation from working.

I think a great law to pass would be that all democrats should drive a cab for a year. Then they would see first hand what goes on. They might not change their views but they would see that there is a big problem with government programs (not just a small one).

[Deleted]

Was it you whose Dad was a cabbie?? Hell yeah, make them drive cabs for a year. They would run screaming at seeing their liberal policies in action on the real streets.

[wyouser]

How about if you want to be a politician you first have to live for a year on a monthly SSI payment of $684.00. Or live on that 82 year old widows social security of $710.00/ month

[Deleted]

That would work, too. First drive the cab and see the abuses, then try to live the innocent old lady's life. Perfect definition of why I am angry a lot. 10 years in a cab exposed to both daily got under my skin.

[wyouser]

I think it would be a real eye opener for those folks setting policies

[Deleted]

Was it you whose Dad was a cabbie??

Not mine.

How about if you want to be a politician you first have to live for a year on a monthly SSI payment of $684.00. Or live on that 82 year old widows social security of $710.00/ month

Just to point out: SS was never meant or designed to be the only money you have when your older. People were supposed to also save money. Who's fault is it if they don't? Personal Responsibility, it's a phrase that isn't used much any more. If I smoke can I get a lung from you? My guess is not no but hell no! Well if I don't save then why can I expect Uncle Sugar to bail me out?

(By the way, My folks are on SS & they live very well on it PLUS what they saved over the years. I plan to do the same).

[Deleted]

Well, that's good for you, tex, but there are lots of us that have spent most of our working lives working very hard in service industry jobs that do not have anything but SS and family to look forward to. Service jobs are NECESSARY and legitimate jobs. What do you propose should happen to hard working people that don't have a wad of cash when they get old? Someone has to do the jobs, unless people with money want to take care of themselves. Or should we have millions and millions and never ending millions with worthless college degrees unemployed and nobody in the bunch knows how to wait tables?