HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Good Reads (Forum) » Hundreds of Thousands of ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 02:57 PM

Hundreds of Thousands of Lower-Wage Workers, Many of Whom Worked for Decades, Would Be Denied Unempl

Center on Budget & Policy Priorities (CPBB):

Hundreds of Thousands of Lower-Wage Workers, Many of Whom Worked for Decades, Would Be Denied Unemployment Insurance Under Provision Now Under Consideration
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3652&emailView=1


A provision that congressional negotiators will consider for legislation to extend the payroll tax cut through the end of 2012 would deny unemployment insurance (UI) to hundreds of thousands of lower-wage workers who worked for years or even decades, effectively paid UI taxes while they worked, and then were laid off.

The provision, part of the full-year payroll-tax bill that the House passed in December, would deny UI benefits to anyworker who lacks a high school diploma or GED and is not enrolled in classes to get one or the other regardless of how long the person worked or whether he or she has access to adult education, which itself has been subject to significant budget cuts in the past few years and is heavily oversubscribed.

<snip>

The bottom line is that the House provision would deny UI benefits to hundreds of thousands of workers many of them middle-aged who have worked hard, played by the rules, and effectively paid UI taxes for years and who then were laid off due to no fault of their own. This would violate the basic compact that the UI system has embodied since its creation under President Roosevelt in 1935 that people who have amassed a sufficient record of work, and on whose behalf UI taxes have faithfully been paid, may receive UI benefits for a temporary period if they are laid off and are searching for a new job.

To add insult to injury, it would allow people without a high school diploma or GED to receive benefits only if they enroll in classes for which there often would be no slots available in part because of budget cuts approved by some of the same policymakers who now embrace this new requirement.


As they note, in 2010, 1.5 million of the workers laid off lacked a HS diploma or its equivalent. They're aiming directly for low-wage workers with this provision. How revolting!

Much more at the link, including details like 50 of 51 states having waiting lists for adult education!

This country has reached a new low when this is even considered as part of any cuts! What, someone who's worked for 30 years is worthless because he/she doesn't have a damn diploma? Give me a break! What kind of scum would agree to that provision? Time will tell.

Ed: Original title with link embedded didn't post. Added title with link below it.

14 replies, 2289 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 14 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hundreds of Thousands of Lower-Wage Workers, Many of Whom Worked for Decades, Would Be Denied Unempl (Original post)
tpsbmam Jan 2012 OP
limpyhobbler Jan 2012 #1
renate Jan 2012 #2
Wellstone ruled Jan 2012 #3
rfranklin Jan 2012 #4
dmallind Jan 2012 #5
barbtries Jan 2012 #6
grntuscarora Jan 2012 #7
suffragette Jan 2012 #8
Kalidurga Jan 2012 #9
tpsbmam Jan 2012 #10
Kalidurga Jan 2012 #12
tpsbmam Jan 2012 #11
denbot Jan 2012 #13
oldhippydude Jan 2012 #14

Response to tpsbmam (Original post)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 03:01 PM

1. this is utterly revolting.

I will not vote for any politician who supports this measure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tpsbmam (Original post)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 03:06 PM

2. whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

The imagination... it boggles.

How can a person's educational background be relevant to whether they deserve unemployment benefits if they were laid off? It's like saying they shouldn't deserve to get their insurance payout if someone hit them when they were driving a Ford instead of a Chevy. They were working. They were laid off. They deserve unemployment benefits. QED.

When I read this I assumed it was a Republican plan, but I don't see that here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tpsbmam (Original post)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 03:09 PM

3. When you guys post

please post the politician responsible for this garbage as so we can nail the turd to the wall.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tpsbmam (Original post)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 03:13 PM

4. It's the usual punish the poor impulse of Republicans...but they have no jobs for college grads

 

so what the hell are they talking about? Might also have to do with sweetheart contracts for Republican contributors who want to sell GED computer programs and this is the way to create demand.

Meanwhile they are also saying education should not be compulsory--
http://thinkprogress.org/education/2012/01/05/397818/new-hampshire-end-education/?mobile=nc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tpsbmam (Original post)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 03:34 PM

5. Incentivizing education is a good thing. But not like this.

Would it not be better to boost the benefits of those who do rather than deny those who do not for a start?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tpsbmam (Original post)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 04:00 PM

6. whose lousy idea is this?

jeez

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tpsbmam (Original post)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 04:04 PM

7. This is disgusting.


Work is work, and if a person is or has been fortunate enough to hold down a paying job, and has paid UI taxes, how can anyone justify denying them UI benefits?

Lately the repukes have been singing the tune that college is not for everyone, just the select few. Now they want to be sure we all have HS/GED diplomas? Evidently they want us to be educated, but not TOO educated. Iow, perfect drone material.

Screw this.








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tpsbmam (Original post)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 04:27 PM

8. Truly disgusting

Found an interesting blog addressing this which brings up some of the underlying intent:

http://povertyandpolicy.wordpress.com/2011/12/14/house-gop-has-radical-agenda-for-unemployment-insurance/

Basically, the education requirement would convert an insurance program to a welfare program a source of cash assistance contingent on what the drafters seem to view as preparation for work.

Lest we doubt the intent here, the bill also authorizes drug tests for applicants something state policymakers have already seized on to screen out applicants for public benefits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tpsbmam (Original post)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 04:31 PM

9. Well we know the House Republicans all passed this...

I want the names of the Democrats that sided with them. It doesn't look like I will get them today, because I looked around for a bit and could neither find the name of the bill or any reports that included names.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kalidurga (Reply #9)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 05:00 PM

10. I found names......here are the Dems who voted for the bill, including

the provisions like the high school graduation or equivalent and all applying for UI must be drug tested:

John Barrow (GA)
Dan Boren (OK)
Leonard L. Boswell (IA)
Bruce Braley (IA)
Dennis Cardoza (CA)
Joe Donnelly (IN)
Dave Loebsack (IA)
Jim Matheson (UT)
Mike Ross (AR)
Tim Walz (MN)

AND the only Republicans to vote against it, I suspect for very different reasons than Dems.....like they don't want anyone getting anything!:

Justin Amash (MI)
Joe L. Barton (TX)
Mo Brooks (AL)
John Campbell (CA)
Jeff Flake (AZ)
Jeff Fortenberry (NE)
Scott Garrett (NJ)
Timothy V. Johnson (IL)
Cynthia M. Lummis (WY)
Tom McClintock (CA)
David McKinley (WV)
Randy Neugebauer (TX)
Frank R. Wolf (VA)
Rob Woodall (GA)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tpsbmam (Reply #10)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 09:58 PM

12. I am very disappointed in Tim Walz fellow.

But, this blue state of Minnesota has been going bonkers lately. For some reason I can't fathom they voted for Michele Bachmann, the explanation being that her district is very rich and conservative. Yeah well fine, but does that mean you vote for someone that is insane, just because they are Republican. I hope I wouldn't vote for a person just because that person said they are a Democrat, like Tim Walz, his rating is like 93% probably higher than mine would be, yet he votes for something this draconian and stupid. I can't vote against him because I am in the third district and he is in the first. But, I sure can hope he is replaced with a Democrat that isn't going to demonize the poor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tpsbmam (Original post)

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 05:25 PM

11. All I can provide at this point is the vote total and a link to votes

H.R.3630: Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011

According to the NY Times:

Portrayed by House Republican leaders as an engine of job creation, the payroll tax bill became entangled Tuesday with a separate omnibus spending bill to finance much of the government for the remainder of the current fiscal year.


This was the preamble to the original version:

Mr. CAMP (for himself, Mr. BACHUS, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, Mr. LUCAS, Mr. UPTON, and Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN) introduced the fol- lowing bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, Transportation and Infrastructure, Agriculture, Oversight and Government Reform, House Administration, the Budget, Natural Resources, Rules, and Select Intelligence (Permanent Select), for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the com- mittee concerned"

That would indicate the following guilty parties:

Dave Camp (R-MI)
Spencer Bachus (R-AL)
Dan Lungren (R-CA)
Frank Lucas (R-OK)
Fred Upton (R-MI)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)

The text of the bill can be found here (I'm not 100% sure this is the final version, but it's what at the NY Times): http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/bills/112/hr3630



The vote was 234 for, 193 against.

10 Dems voted for it and 14 Republicans voted against it (names given in my earlier post).

So, there are the parties given credit for the bill -- I suspect the House ReTHUG leaders deserve more credit than they've gotten here.

ED to add the forgotten link to the NY Times page for individual votes on this bill, as well as the vote totals:
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/house/1/923



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tpsbmam (Original post)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 03:40 AM

13. This is just an underhanded way to deny unemployment benefits to as many people as possible..

Umm.. BTW when did we get another state?:
"Much more at the link, including details like 50 of 51 states having waiting lists for adult education!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to denbot (Reply #13)

Sat Jan 7, 2012, 09:07 AM

14. to answer your first question

scince the election of 10 we now have a state of Mass Confusion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread