So, the country faces insolvency from its over-obligations, throws the Democrats out of power in the House, elects a bunch of debt and deficit hawks to Congress--and what do we get as the very first "deal" (albeit with the old Congress, not the new)? An agreement that essentially adds to the deficit. No, I'm not talking about the fact that the Obama tax increase has been defeated--no, lower tax rates NEVER have to pay for themselves. Thinking that they do concedes that the government has money of its own, which we know to be false. Any money the government allocates is property separated from its owners at the point of a gun.
I'm talking about the extension of unemployment benefits for another 13 months. This is ridiculous. When will we realize that over-generous unemployment checks EXTEND periods of unemployment? I had a chat earlier today with a friend who was unemployed for an extended period about a dozen years ago or so...he was explaining to me how he had to do two interviews/file two applications each week to be eligible for his benefit. He recounted that once--he was under the gun to get his paperwork in--before leaving for vacation. Another time, he was similarly late in getting the paperwork in, and had to move quickly in order to make his horse riding lesson.
Now clearly, this is NOT the experience of the average unemployed person. But the lesson is clear--the "safety net" of generous unemployment benefits keeps people less motivated to find work.
This is not a good start.
I was unemployed twice in my life. The first time I had to show that I was actively looking for work. The second time it was all done on computers, just a few key strokes and I was done. Never had to show them that I was actively looking, just had to check a box that I was actively looking. I did have cover letters that I send out as back up but it was way too easy.
ReplyDeleteCould not agree more. Unemployment, unlike under-employment, is often times a matter of choice.
ReplyDeleteHey, maybe some of the guys in Michigan can borrow a few bucks off their fat 'n happy UAW pals.
Just saw Jim Webb (D?-VA) on CNN, and hw offered that he was his own man, whether he was an R or a D. It has begun.
ReplyDelete"...property separated from its owners at the point of a gun." Interesting turn of phrase, CW. Very Randian, and by that I am referring to Ayn Rand, but I imagine Rand Paul would concur with the sentiment.
ReplyDeleteRB Wolfpack....Ayn or Paul...I'm happy to agree with them on this one. While it is clearly a duty and obligation of citizenship to pay one's taxes, it is inescapable that the transaction is always, always underwritten by the threat of force. Don't believe me? Try not paying them for a few years....
ReplyDeleteAnecdote ain't the singular of data. Lesson? Maybe some, but I'm not convinced that unemployment increased to 9.8% because people are goldbricking in their job searches.
ReplyDeleteAnon--thank you SO much! Where would I be without you? Here I am thinking my "Now clearly, this is NOT the experience of the average unemployed person" was sufficient to ensure that I wasn't attempting to paint all the unemployed with the same brush.
ReplyDeleteWhat portion of the 9.8% ARE you willing to ascribe to generous benefits?
Not very Christmas spirit there. Didn't suggest that. Pointing to the "But the lesson is clear." Guess I misread that the non-average example you offered was spoda be the proof of the lesson.
ReplyDeleteWhich of the 9.8%. Great question. No clue.