Member of the reality-based community of progressive (not anonymous) Massachusetts blogs
Kudos on Senator Brown for voting for the (meager, filled with Republican pork aka useless tax cuts) jobs bill that came up for a vote recently. Of course, he wasn’t the swing vote, since several Senate Republicans voted for it, so it hardly shows a pattern of bucking Republican directives, but it’s worth noting.
However, I wonder where Senator Brown stands on the unemployment and COBRA extension bills now being filibustered by his colleague, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY)? Bunning is insisting that existing stimulus funding go toward the benefits, which expire Sunday unless Congress extends them. Get that? People on unemployment will go without, and the jobs stimulus money which might be able to put them to work would be stolen for their benefits. This time, the Dems are making Bunning stand and actually filibuster. (Thank goodness, they found a spine somewhere!) As John says (bold mine),
This idiot wants us to use the stimulus funds that haven’t yet been spent, but are about to be spent. By CBO’s estimate, up to 3.5 million jobs are depending on the stimulus for their existence this coming year. This moron wants to wipe that out. The economy isn’t out of trouble yet. A lot of economist worry that the economy may contract again the fall. Taking back the remaining stimulus funds while the economy is still teetering, i.e., decreasing demand, is insane.
So, when cloture comes up, Senator Brown, are you voting with the people of Massachusetts depending on both jobs growth and unemployment to hold them over until they get there? Or are you a Republican?
Update: Sigh. I take it back. It’s not a “real” filibuster, though the Dems are reportedly going to repeatedly ask for “unanimous consensus” to try to pass the bill. I say, keep the Senate open all weekend, and again, MAKE the guy ACTUALLY filibuster. I really do hate the Dems sometimes.
Update II: Oh my lord. This is a quote from Bunning:
And at one point during the debate, which dragged on till nearly midnight, Bunning complained of missing a basketball game.
“I have missed the Kentucky-South Carolina game that started at 9:00,” he said,
“and it’s the only redeeming chance we had to beat South Carolina since they’re the only team that has beat Kentucky this year.
Screw you unemployed, and can we have a break? I need to go potty and watch some basketball. God damn.
Update III: I take it back. I really. Really. Really hate Democrats. WAKE UP YOU PANSIES! Gah. I hope none of my readers are on extended unemployment, because there’s a good chance you’ll lose it come Sunday, if this impasse is not broken.
[powered by WordPress.]
42 queries. 0.599 seconds
February 27th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
How long would it take the Democratic Party controlled US Senate to do it the regular way, where “Unanimous Consent” would not be required (I hate it when there are long, complicated words, which I might misspell as part of the process, especially because I can’t “preview” this page.)?
The problem is, Senator Bunning has a point. The US Senate promised to not pass stuff that increased the debt. Didn’t they understand what they were doing? And, the benefits need to be extended.
Regards — Cliff
March 1st, 2010 at 9:09 am
Don’t buy it for a minute. This was a vote intended to bolster Brown as some kind of independent-minded new generation of leader. He cast a vote that wasn’t needed and in what I am sure is a carefully orchestrated response, was immediately ripped by conservative opinion setters. The whole point was to let him stray off the reservation when his vote didn’t matter to try to solidify his Massachusetts base. Just watch what happens when it does matter; he’ll do what he’s told, but can point to this vote and crow about his “independence” when he’s called out for voting contrary to what his constiutents prefer.
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:10 am
How much longer would this have extended benefits? My understanding is that in Mass benefits can last as long as 75 weeks. Just how long should be people be able to file claims?
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:01 am
When there’s a 9-10% unemployment rate, -b, as long as it takes. Unless you WANT people to starve and lose their homes and be on the streets?
Keep in mind, if you draw unemployment, you have to keep checking in with them and prove you’re looking for work. You can lose your unemployment quite quickly if you stop looking and they catch you (as I recall, it wasn’t easy to “game” that either - it’s been a long time since I collected in a previous downturn, but I remember going through that). So it’s not like handing out cash to undeserving people who aren’t looking for work.
There just literally ISN’T any work out there, and that’s WHY we have a safety net. So let’s all be patient and have a bit of compassion.
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:04 am
Also, keep in mind, UI is paid by employers into a pool. I pay UI for instance (once my company pays out past a certain minimum in salaries). It is, essentially, an insurance premium (in fact it goes up if I lay people off, which is a bit of a disincentive to be a bad company which hires and lays off indiscriminately). So the laws might extend the eligibility period, and perhaps right now the feds need to subsidize that money pool due to high demand, but generally speaking, it’s an employer insurance premium, not your income tax or anything else, that goes into paying unemployment.
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:40 pm
So if unemployment stays at this level for the next several years (which I think it will) we should just keep extending the benefits? 2 years, 3 years, 4 years?